Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00489/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00489-0/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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Thomas489attyden 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DONNELL THOMAS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. CELAYA, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0489 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Salinas Valley State Prison officials. Plaintiff has filed a

motion for appointment of counsel. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel (docket no. 3) without prejudice. The Court will review

Plaintiff’s complaint in a separate written order. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff maintains that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he is unemployed, indigent and unable to

employ counsel. Plaintiff asserts that this action is complex because there are numerous

claims and Defendants. Plaintiff states that he has been housed in Administrative

**Original filed 9/21/06**

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 6 Filed 09/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Thomas489attyden 2

Segregation without access to the law library or other inmates and is subjected to

retaliation by the Defendants. See Plaintiff’s Mot at 4-5. However, there is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to

“request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of

counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). Because the Court

has not reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the claims are

cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is

not necessary at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(docket no. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may request counsel at a later

stage of the proceedings, if appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

 United States District Judge

9/21/06 /s/jeremy fogel

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 6 Filed 09/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Thomas489attyden 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Larry Donnell Thomas

H-79847

Pleasant Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 8501

Coalinga, CA 93210 

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 6 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 3