Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00128/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00128-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY HILL and ELSIE HOPE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) 

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:06-cv-00128 REC TAG

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff Anthony Hill, proceeding pro se, seeks appointment of counsel in conjunction

with a civil action filed by him on behalf of himself and plaintiff Elsie Hope in an action alleging

violations of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

The statute providing for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, contemplates

the possibility of appointment of counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, “[c]ounsel should

only be appointed in exceptional circumstances, based on such factors as the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims in light of their

complexity.” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, “[a]

finding of ‘exceptional circumstances’ requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success

on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986)(citation omitted).

Case 1:06-cv-00128-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 03/06/06 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

This Court need not address these issues at this time insofar as plaintiffs have not

satisfied the threshold requirement of the in forma pauperis statute: while two plaintiffs are

named in the complaint, financial information has only been provided for one, Anthony Hill. 

Moreover, since plaintiff Hill is appearing pro per, he cannot provide such financial information

on behalf of plaintiff Elsie Hope. It was for these reasons that this Court previously denied an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2 and 10). 

It is therefore ORDERED that the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00128-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2