Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01079/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01079-2/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

1 11cv1079 BTM (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOPEZ,

CDCR # H-30604 Civil

No. 

11cv1079 BTM (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs. [ECF No. 21] 

G.J. GIURBINO; URIBE DOMINGO;

N. GRANNIS; M. HODGES; DENNIS

BROWN; ALICIA GARCIA; L. KASTNER;

M. AYALA; B. NARVIS; D. FOSTON,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison and proceeding

pro se, has filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 21]. In this Motion, Plaintiff

requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action. The

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

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

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 plaintiff 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

Case 3:11-cv-01079-BTM-PCL Document 23 Filed 03/05/12 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 11cv1079 BTM (PCL)

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

DATED: March 5, 2012 _________________________________________

 HON. BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

 United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-01079-BTM-PCL Document 23 Filed 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2