Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01976/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01976-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

10cv1976-AJB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAWANTA J. LAMBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK SOTO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10cv1976-AJB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 15]

By motion dated April 11, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, requests that this Court appoint counsel to assist him. ECF No. 15. In support of his

motion, Plaintiff states that he requires counsel because: (1) he does not have the financial

resources to employ counsel, (2) he has limited formal education, no legal training, and limited

access to legal materials, (3) he required the assistance of other prisoners to file all of his

pleadings, including this motion, but such assistance generally is “nearly non-existent,” and

(4) this is a complex case that will require serious and complex discovery. Id. at 2-3. This is

Plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 3. The district judge denied

his first motion on October 29, 2010, noting that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that

“exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. ECF No. 4.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted

Case 3:10-cv-01976-AJB-BLM Document 16 Filed 04/27/11 Page 1 of 2
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 10cv1976-AJB (BLM)

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional

circumstances demands 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.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986)). 

Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted several pleadings and motions without the

assistance of counsel. In addition to the instant motion, he has submitted a complaint (ECF No.

1), two motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 & 5), and a previous motion for

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3). From the Court’s review of these documents, it is clear that

Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his case. While he may have had some assistance from

other prisoners in preparing these documents, Plaintiff’s pending complaint is comprehendible

and nothing before the Court indicates that Plaintiff will not be able to continue to pursue his

case. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for counsel, see ECF No. 4, and Plaintiff’s

current request does not provide any new facts justifying such an extraordinary remedy.

Further, Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that his case

should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance[].” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; see also

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional

circumstances” at this time, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for

appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2011

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01976-AJB-BLM Document 16 Filed 04/27/11 Page 2 of 2