Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01231/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 Plaintiff’s Complaint is attached to the Notice of Removal filed by

Defendant. Because the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint are not

consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to the Notice of Removal using the

page numbers provided by the electronic case filing system.

1 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN NOBLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv1231 WQH(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL [DOC. NO. 5] 

Plaintiff John Nobles, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a personal injury Complaint in the Superior Court of

California on March 28, 2007 [doc. no. 1]. He alleged that the

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) denied him medical care

while he was in CBP custody. (Notice of Removal 4-6.)1 Defendant

removed the case to this Court on July 6, 2007. (Id. at 1.) 

Several months later, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Appointment

of Counsel [doc. no. 5], which was filed nunc pro tunc to October

11, 2007. Defendant thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 7
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 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

Complaint [doc. no. 7], which was set to be heard by this Court on

April 21, 2008. Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion was due by

April 7, 2008, see S.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7.1(e)(2), but to date no

opposition has been filed. On April 21, 2008, the Court found that

the Motion was suitable for resolution on the papers without oral

argument [doc. no. 8]. 

 In support of his request for appointment of counsel, Nobles

asserts the following: (1) He is currently incarcerated in federal

prison and has little money; (2) he was placed in the Special

Housing Unit (“S.H.U.”), and therefore has limited access to

information to use in prosecuting this case; and (3) he cannot

obtain pro bono counsel because he is only allowed one phone call

per month and has no other means of contacting attorneys. (Req.

for Counsel 1-2.) 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides: “The court may request an

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(1) (West Supp. 2006). Yet, “it is wellestablished that there is generally no constitutional right to

counsel in civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233,

1236 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In

re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994); Friedman v.

Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir. 1990)). Federal courts do not

have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” 

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

also United States v. $292,888.04 in United States Currency, 54

F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).

Nevertheless, district courts have discretion, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to request attorney representation for

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 7
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 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional

circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101,

1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1236 (9th Cir. 1984)); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir.

1989). 

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 1104 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted)). “‘Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision.’” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn,

789 F.2d at 1332).

I. Likelihood of Plaintiff’s Success on the Merits

To receive court-appointed counsel, Nobles must present a

nonfrivolous claim that is likely to succeed on the merits. 

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts

that on February 22, 2007, an unnamed United States Customs agent

refused a doctor’s order granting Plaintiff medical attention. 

(Notice of Removal 5-6.) Refusing to honor the Plaintiff’s need

for medical care left Nobles “permanently disabled for life.” (Id.

at 6.) Following the refusal of medical care, Plaintiff claims the

customs agent committed perjury in federal court by denying that he

refused to give Plaintiff the proper medical assistance. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to state two causes of action

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 7
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

4 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

arising under California law: negligence and perjury. (Id. at 3,

5.)

A plaintiff suing for negligence under California law must

allege four elements: a duty, a breach of that duty, proximate

cause, and damages. Berkley v. Dowds, 152 Cal. App. 4th 518, 526,

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 304, 310-11 (Ct. App. 2007). By statute,

California imposes a duty on government employees who have custody

of prisoners to provide medical care to the prisoners when needed. 

Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6. A government employee breaches that duty

when a prisoner “is in need of immediate medical care and [the

employee] fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical

care.” Id. 

For Plaintiff’s negligence claim to succeed, Nobles must

demonstrate that the customs agent knew, or should have known, that 

Plaintiff was in need of immediate medical care. Berkley, 152 Cal.

App. 4th at 526, 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 310-11. Plaintiff also needs

to prove that he suffered an injury, and that the injury was caused

by the custom agent’s refusal to provide medical care. Id.

The Complaint alleges that Nobles suffered a “severe

disability for life” and “permanent disfigurement[,]” but it does

not provide any specific information about the type of injury he

suffered. (See Notice of Removal 5-6.) Furthermore, the Complaint

does not identify what doctor’s orders the customs agent allegedly

refused to follow. (See id. at 6.) Without any specific factual

allegations, the Court cannot say there is a likelihood that

Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his negligence claim. 

Nobles likewise has not shown a likelihood of success on his

perjury claim. California law does not recognize a civil cause of

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 4 of 7
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

5 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

action for perjury. Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1515

(9th Cir. 1991) (citing Agnew v. Parks, 172 Cal. App. 2d 756, 765,

343 P.2d 118, 124 (Ct. App. 1959)). Perjury is only punishable as

a criminal offense. See People v. Garcia, 39 Cal. 4th 1070, 1091,

141 P.3d 197, 210, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75, 90 (2006) (listing the

elements of the crime of perjury). Accordingly, Nobles’s purported

“perjury” claim is not likely to succeed on the merits. See Kluth

v. Bolduc, 738 F. Supp. 329, 332 (E.D. Wis. 1990) (finding a claim

without merit because it was precluded by law). Even if he could

pursue a cause of action based on the custom agent’s allegedly

perjured statements, Nobles again fails to provide the Court with

any specific facts to support his claim. He does not identify the

federal court action in which these statements were made, nor does

he identify the content of the statements. (See Notice of Removal

6.) Without any specific factual information, the Court cannot say

at this point that Plaintiff will likely succeed on the merits of

his case.

II. Plaintiff’s Ability To Proceed Without Counsel

To be entitled to appointed counsel, Nobles must also show he

is unable to effectively litigate the case pro se in light of the

complexity of the issues involved. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

Nobles claims he is unable to afford outside legal counsel,

and the likelihood of being able to obtain pro bono counsel is

minimal. (Req. for Counsel 1-2.) This argument is not compelling

because indigence alone does not entitled a plaintiff to appointed

counsel. Plaintiff further asserts that his placement in the

S.H.U. burdens his ability to adequately conduct research and

prepare his case. (Id.) He is only entitled to one phone call a

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

month. (Id. at 1.) His placement in the S.H.U. also limits his

access to legal materials necessary to pursue the case himself. 

(Id. at 1-2.) Based on these facts, Plaintiff requests a courtappointed attorney. (Id. at 2.) 

Although Nobles asserts that his access to legal materials is

limited in the S.H.U., he has not presented any facts demonstrating

that he is being denied “reasonable” access. See Lindquist v.

Idaho State Bd. of Corrs., 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). 

“[T]he Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access

to a law library. Prison officials of necessity must regulate the

time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Id.

Plaintiff has not shown that he is denied reasonable access to a

law library or other means of conducting legal research, or that he

is subjected to burdens beyond those ordinarily experienced by pro

se plaintiffs. 

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s litigation of the case

thus far has not been perfect. Nobles’s pro se Complaint does not

mention any of the elements of negligence, nor does he specify any

facts underlying his claim beyond vague and conclusory allegations. 

This could suggest an inability adequately prepare court filings on

his own behalf. See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 704 (8th Cir.

1992) (stating that inadequacy of the plaintiff’s pro se complaint

showed the case required attorney assistance). But although

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain detailed allegations, these

are not exceptional circumstances. Nobles’s difficulty, in part,

stems from his desire to pursue a civil claim for perjury when one

does not exist. Nevertheless, his Complaint is adequate in form. 

Nobles was able to file an articulate Request for Appointment of

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 6 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\1983\PRISONER\NOBLES1231\CounselOrder-Edited.wpd 7 07cv1231-WQH (RBB)

Counsel, suggesting at least some ability to navigate the legal

process. See Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996)

(finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

plaintiff counsel, in part because plaintiff adequately filed a

complaint and other pre-trial materials). 

“[A]ny pro se litigant certainly would be better served with

the assistance of counsel.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

(9th Cir. 1997); see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“[A] pro se

litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the

facts necessary to support the case.”). But Plaintiff is only

entitled to appointed counsel if he can show “that because of the

complexity of the claims he [is] unable to articulate his

positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Nobles has shown nothing in

the record which makes this case “exceptional” or the issues in it

particularly complex. The “exceptional circumstances” required for

appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) are

absent. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate either a

likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or an inability

to represent himself (beyond the ordinary burdens encountered by

prisoners representing themselves pro se), Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2008

 Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Hayes

All Parties of Record

Case 3:07-cv-01231-WQH-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/02/08 Page 7 of 7