Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05218/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05218-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORY DEAN RUNGE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Mr. IPPOLLITO; A. SOTELLO; M. R.

TURK; Mrs. BOCELLA; V. ORTEGA; E.

GARCIA; J. W. DOVEY; M. S. EVANS;

Mrs. WOLF; A. MAJOR; Dr. LEE; Mr.

ARMSTRONG; R. JONES; C. R.

SHARPS; Mr. CAITO; MR. RINCON;

MRS. CALDERAS; and JANE DOES 1-

6,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5218 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff has renewed his

request for appointment of counsel, three earlier such motions having been denied. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel

represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of

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

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 4:06-cv-05218-PJH Document 34 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Some of the defendants have moved to dismiss the claims against them on grounds

plaintiff has not exhausted. Plaintiff has filed a very competent opposition to the motion,

and the grounds for appointment of counsel he puts forward mostly relate to trial of this

matter, something which may not occur if the case is disposed of on motion. The motions

for appointment of counsel (documents number 20 and 33 on the docket) are DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion for an order for plaintiff’s to stop allegedly-retaliatory actions

(document number 9) is DENIED. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.

1994) (party seeking injunctive relief must show "a relationship between the injury claimed

in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint"; prisoner's request for

injunction against retaliation for lawsuit was properly denied because not related to medical

care issue of complaint). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\RUNGE218.ATY.wpd 

Case 4:06-cv-05218-PJH Document 34 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2