Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-15/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

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

Brandon Meeks,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. Nunez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13cv973-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

FOURTH MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 177.) Based 

on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

I. Background

On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Defendants 

for constitutional violations for an incident on April 25, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) On October 

15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 17.) On November 5, 

2013, Magistrate Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 21.) 

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed another motion to appoint counsel. (ECF 

No. 56.) In that motion, Plaintiff sought appointment of counsel to assist in conducting 

discovery and claimed to have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”) which makes it difficult for him to read, write and understand materials in the 

case. (Id.) Judge Curiel denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel on October 6, 2014. (ECF 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 182 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

No. 62.) In that order, Judge Curiel noted that Plaintiff provided no evidence to support 

his disability or the nature of his disability. (Id. at 3:19-21.)

On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third motion to appoint counsel. (ECF 

No. 114). In that motion, Plaintiff again sought appointment of counsel to assist in 

conducting discovery and again claimed to have a disability under the ADA. (Id.) Judge 

Skomal denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel on December 11, 2015. (ECF No. 116.) In 

that order, Judge Skomal noted that Plaintiff’s arguments were no different than his prior 

requests for appointment of counsel, all of which the Court denied, and that Plaintiff still 

provided no evidence to support his disability or the nature of his disability. (Id. at 3-4.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion, his fourth request for appointment of counsel, on 

July 20, 2016. (ECF No. 177.)

II. Plaintiff’s Request

In support of his request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff submits a declaration 

wherein he states that he cannot afford to hire a lawyer. (ECF No. 177 at 1, ¶ 2.) He also 

states that he is extremely limited in his ability to litigate his case due to his 

imprisonment, and his case will likely involve substantial investigation and discovery. 

(Id. at 3, ¶ 2.) He states that the issues in his case are complex, and a lawyer would help 

him to: (1) prepare for an evidentiary hearing and/or discovery requests (id. at 2, ¶ 1), (2) 

appoint and examine expert witnessess (id. at 4, ¶ 2). He alleges that issues such as 

credibility, qualified immunity, affirmative defenses, standards of review, and burdens of 

proof support the appointment of counsel. (id. at 3, ¶ 3 and 4, ¶ 2.)

The rest of Plaintiff’s declaration alleges events not raised in the Complaint, and

are therefore irrelevant to the determination of the instant motion.

III. Standard

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.”

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman,

654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In

re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 182 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation omitted). 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).

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 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the

exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an

evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an

evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

IV. Discussion

Plaintiff’s arguments are no different than his prior requests for appointment of 

counsel. Plaintiff states that he cannot afford to hire a lawyer (ECF No. 177 at 1, ¶ 1), he 

cannot conduct an investigation and discovery (id. at 3, ¶ 2) and the case involves

complex legal issues (id. at 2, ¶ 1). He made these exact arguments in his first request for 

appointment of counsel, which this Court denied on November 5, 2013. (See ECF No. 

21.) For example, Plaintiff’s current declaration again states that he has a limited 

education, but lacks evidence or explanation as how that impacts his ability to litigate his 

case. An examination of the docket indicates that Plaintiff has participated in the 

discovery process, the meet and confer process, and has filed over twenty-seven

documents with the Court. (See e.g., ECF Nos. 17, 23, 31, 33, 36, 38, 50, 56, 58, 61, 63, 

72, 74, 80, 83, 88, 90, 94, 100, 105, 114, 118, 129, 135, 140, 141, 155.) Plaintiff has 

presented no new arguments in support of his request for counsel. As before, the Court 

finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant the 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 182 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 15, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 182 Filed 08/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4