Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01361/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01361-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv1361-CAB-LL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KJONNA OGGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

O. NAVARRO, Correction Officer, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1361-CAB-LL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL FOR DEPOSITION

[ECF No. 48]

On August 14, 2019, nunc pro nunc, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, filed a motion requesting that this Court appoint counsel for the limited 

purpose of Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiff, and to postpone his deposition until the 

Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion requesting counsel. ECF No. 48. In support of his request 

for counsel, Plaintiff claims that assistance of counsel is “highly necessary” because 

(1) Plaintiff is receiving help to litigate this case; (2) he reads and writes at a second-grade

level; (3) “he is an extreme mental health case with multiple health diagnoses”; and (4) he 

suffers from severe memory problems. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff further contends that he needs 

counsel in order to answer questions, help him read and understand, and prevent him from 

incriminating himself. Id. at 2. Having considered Plaintiff’s motion and the applicable 

law, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below.

Case 3:18-cv-01361-CAB-LL Document 51 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1361-CAB-LL

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

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in § 1983 cases. 

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). However, the 

Ninth Circuit has held that “a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel 

for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2004). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court 

must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id.

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)). Neither of these 

considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together. Id. (citing Wilborn v. 

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

Thus far, Plaintiff has submitted several documents without the assistance of legal 

counsel. In addition to the instant motion, Plaintiff has submitted a complaint [ECF 

Nos. 1, 2] and a response to an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 40]. From the Court’s 

review of these documents, it is clear that Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his 

case, despite Plaintiff’s claims of difficulties due to his mental health and memory issues.

Plaintiff’s filings are coherent, focused, and demonstrate an active understanding of the 

issues presented. Additionally, there is no indication that the issues are overly complex. 

Although it is too early for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits, Plaintiff fails to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances” that would 

warrant the appointment of counsel. Therefore, the Court finds at this stage of the pleadings 

Plaintiff has not provided a showing of “exceptional circumstances” justifying the 

appointment of legal counsel. See Estrada v. Sayre, No. 12-CV-00592-LHK, 2013 WL 

5073773, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2013) (denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel for his deposition after finding Plaintiff capable of proceeding with his claims pro 

se and deeming it too early to evaluate the strength of Plaintiff’s claims). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel for his deposition is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

Case 3:18-cv-01361-CAB-LL Document 51 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1361-CAB-LL

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

Plaintiff also asks for his deposition to be postponed pending the issuance of the 

Court’s ruling on the instant motion. ECF No. 48 at 1. On September 6, 2019, the Court 

granted Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the Scheduling Order, in which they 

requested moving Plaintiff’s deposition to November 4, 2019. ECF No. 50; see also ECF 

No. 49 at 1-2. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request to postpone his deposition 

is now MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 6, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01361-CAB-LL Document 51 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3