Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01145/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

18cv1145-BTM(KSC)

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

ROBERT ARTHUR FANNING,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

DEAN BORDERS, WARDEN, 

 Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1145-BTM(KSC)

Order Denying Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 11]

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Robert Arthur Fanning, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on June 1, 2018. [Doc. No. 1.] 

Before this Court is petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. No. 6.] 

Petitioner asks the Court to appoint counsel for him because, inter alia, he has “no means 

of paying for an attorney, nor of contacting any attorneys . . . to request pro bono 

representation.” Id., at p. 2. Petitioner further contends he has “no knowledge pertaining 

to legal matters, proper procedures and language.” Id., at p. 3. Lastly, petitioner asserts he 

needs counsel due to his “lack of [] needed knowledge or experience.” Id. For the reasons 

set forth below, petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

Case 3:18-cv-01145-BTM-KSC Document 12 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1145-BTM(KSC)

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

DISCUSSION

“There is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 

Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). District Courts have discretion, however, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)(1) to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil 

litigants upon showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). 

“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.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive 

and both must be viewed together before making a decision.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 

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

Here, petitioner has failed to present sufficient grounds to demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. First, a pro se prisoner’s inability to afford an attorney, standing alone, is 

not enough to show exceptional circumstances. This and other hardships imposed by 

petitioner’s incarceration “are difficulties which any litigant would have in proceeding pro 

se; they do not indicate exceptional factors.” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-

1336 (9th Cir. 1990). Second, petitioner has not addressed the likelihood of success on the 

merits in his Motion, and a likelihood of success is not evident from the face of his habeas 

petition or the limited record currently before the Court. [Doc. No. 1.]

Third, there is no basis on which the Court could conclude petitioner lacks the ability 

to articulate his claims pro se. [Doc. No. 6, at p. 3.] While petitioner may lack legal 

knowledge, this hardship is no different than the hardships encountered by all incarcerated 

litigants, and does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Moreover, the allegations 

in his habeas Petition are clearly stated and they survived initial scrutiny [Doc. Nos. 1, 4.] 

Petitioner also filed a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted by the

Court. [Doc. Nos. 2-3.] In sum, the petitioner thus far has demonstrated the ability to 

articulate his claims pro se.

Case 3:18-cv-01145-BTM-KSC Document 12 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1145-BTM(KSC)

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

Finally, litigants proceeding pro se are generally afforded some leniency to 

compensate for their lack of legal training. Indeed, “[c]ourts have a duty to construe pro 

se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as well as complaints.” Bernhardt v. Los 

Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, petitioner’s pro se status 

will be taken into consideration by the Court when his filings are reviewed. 

Consequently, petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01145-BTM-KSC Document 12 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3