Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01302/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01302-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE ARRAIGA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. S. KO, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1302-CAB-NLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

(Dkt. No. 34)

Plaintiff Vicente Alvarez (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action against Defendants Dr. Ko, Dr. 

McCabe, Dr. Sangha, and Deputy Director Lewis. He alleges claims under the 

Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

I. Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff asks this Court to appoint him counsel from the Court’s pro bono 

panel. (Dkt. No. 34.) He argues the Court should appoint counsel because (1) he 

does not have ready access to a law library and lacks legal training in the law; (2) 

although he has articulated his claims thus far, he does not possess the legal training 

to effectively present his case, to counter Defendants’ anticipated discovery tactics, 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

to conduct discovery, and to identify and obtain an expert; (3) his case is complex 

and requires the expertise of legal counsel, and such assistance would result in the 

just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the action. (Id. at 2-6.) In support, 

Plaintiff asserts that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that the issues in his case 

are complex and his confinement limits his ability to pursue discovery, that an 

attorney will need to present expert testimony, and that an attorney would be better

equipped to conduct cross-examinations of parties and witnesses on issues of 

credibility. (Id. at 13-25.)

II. Legal Standard

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In 

pro se and in forma pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority 

“to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). But they do have discretion to request that an 

attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional 

circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “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 viewed together 

before reaching a decision.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991), quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

1

 

1 Plaintiff cites to out-of-circuit authorities to suggest that he is not required 

to show exceptional circumstances, and that the Court should consider other factors. 

(Dkt. No. 34 at 12-13 (citing cases).) Those decisions are not binding on this 

Court, which sits in the Ninth Circuit, because the Ninth Circuit “has limited the 

exercise of that power [under section 1915] to exceptional circumstances.” Aldabe 

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted); see also 

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (“The decision to appoint such counsel is within ‘the 

sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 

circumstances’”)(citation omitted).

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

3

III. Discussion

Here, this case is in the early stages, and there is very little before the Court 

regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s case other than the allegations in the Complaint. 

See Dkt. No. 34 at 14-17 (citing to allegations in the Complaint). As a result, it is 

difficult at this time to determine the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the 

merits. See Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (concluding 

likelihood of success not shown where the plaintiff did not present any evidence 

other than his own assertions to support his claims).

Further, where a pro se civil rights plaintiff shows he has a good grasp of basic 

litigation procedure and has been able to adequately articulate his claims, he does 

not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant appointing counsel. See 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court has reviewed 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and other pleadings and finds that the issues he raises are not 

particularly complex. The Court understands Plaintiff’s claims and the relief 

sought. Plaintiff also demonstrated he has a good grasp on basic litigation 

procedure, as evidenced by his pleadings and submissions. 

Although Plaintiff asserts counsel is needed to engage in discovery and 

potentially secure expert testimony, this does not necessarily amount to exceptional 

circumstances. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“Most actions require development of 

further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to 

investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case. If all that was required to 

establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of 

the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve 

complex legal issues.”); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)

(finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court 

denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have 

fared better - particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

4

testimony,” because that is not the applicable test). Further, as to Plaintiff’s 

assertion that he has limited access to the law library, such an issue is common to 

many prisoners and also does not amount to exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., 

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding denial of

appointment of counsel where plaintiff complained that he had limited access to 

law library and lacked a legal education). In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has 

sufficiently put on his case thus far in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved, and the circumstances are not exceptional to warrant appointing counsel. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success or 

that the complexity of the case requires appointment of counsel. The Court thus 

does not find the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of 

counsel at this time is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS Document 36 Filed 04/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4