Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02097/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02097-1/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

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 18-cv-2097-GPC-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 20]

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is currently incarcerated at 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD). (ECF No. 1). On March 8, 

2019, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20). 

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, 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). 

District 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 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 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 21 Filed 03/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. 

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

Here, Plaintiff supports his Motion by stating that he is enrolled in an 

outpatient mental health program, is in Administrative Segregation, and 

requires the use of a wheel chair. (ECF No. 20 at 2). However, it appears 

that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and 

is able to adequately articulate the basis of his claims as demonstrated by 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1). In fact, Plaintiff’s pro se pleading 

survived the initial screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 

1915A(b). Further, Plaintiffs claims are not particularly complex, and 

although sufficient to survive screening, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits. 

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to 

show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: March 14, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 21 Filed 03/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2