Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, CDCR #V69078

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART RYAN; JEAN WOODFORD;

CORTEZ, Correctional Counselor; HOMER, 

Correctional Counselor,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07-cv-1373 JM (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [DOC. NO.17.] 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a civil rights Complaint

[Doc. No. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and currently incarcerated at RJ Donovan

Correctional Facility, has submitted a motion in which he requests that the Court appoint counsel

for him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). [Doc. No. 17.]

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust

Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts

do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States

District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request”

that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. 

See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d

819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both

the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff contends that he meets the exceptional circumstances showing because he has no

legal training and is confined in protective custody with limited access to legal materials. 

(Plaintiff’s Motion, Doc. No. 17, pp. 4-5.) After an evaluation of: (1) the merits of Plaintiff’s

case, wherein he alleges “deliberate indifference to classify or label Plaintiff a sexual predator

and restrict his visitation”; and (2) the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims, which are not

complex, the Court finds exceptional circumstances do not presently exist to warrant appointment of counsel at this time. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his

case, the legal issues involved, and is able to adequately articulate the basis of his claims. In

fact, Plaintiff’s pro se pleading has survived the initial screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and Plaintiff has successfully filed the instant motion for 

appointment of counsel and several motions thereafter including a motion for preliminary

injunction [Doc. No. 20.], for leave to file a second amended complaint and to strike discovery.

[Doc. Nos.31-32.]

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed

to plead facts sufficient to show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s

Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [Doc. No. 17]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 37 Filed 04/28/08 Page 3 of 3