Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00446-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELTON W. ERVIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00446 GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(Doc. 54)

Plaintiff Elton Ervin (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this civil action, in which he 

alleges violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. 13 at 10. On 

December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 54). In the motion, 

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint an attorney to represent him in this matter. Specifically, 

Plaintiff states that he seeks the appointment of counsel so that his interests in this litigation are 

protected. He further states that he is presently incarcerated and cannot afford to retain counsel 

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 56 Filed 01/13/15 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

independently. 

“[I]it is well-established 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)). Similarly, there is no 

constitutional right to appointed counsel to pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Campbell v. 

Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), “[t]he 

court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Appointment of 

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915is however discretionary, not mandatory. United States v. 

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The court may appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only under “exceptional 

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of 

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 

and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even when 

exceptional circumstances are present, the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a pro se 

party. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 

310 (1989) (federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of 

counsel”); see also $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d at 569. Rather, the Court requests the 

voluntary assistance of counsel in the most serious and exceptional cases. 

Plaintiff raises 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on excessive force and false arrest theories. 

A review of Plaintiff’s complaint does not reveal particularly complex or exceptional legal and 

factual issues when compared to other § 1983 cases filed in this Court. In light of the early stage 

of the proceedings, the Court is unable to make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed 

on the merits; moreover Plaintiff offers no argument to the effect that he has any requisite 

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 56 Filed 01/13/15 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

likelihood of success. Further, given the nature of the case and proceedings thus far, Plaintiff 

does not appear to be hampered in his ability to articulate his positions. Having considered these 

factors together, the Court finds that this case does not present exceptional circumstances 

warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00446-EPG Document 56 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 3