Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02420/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02420-3/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 Since Plaintiff did not specify under what authority he seeks counsel, the

Court presumes Plaintiff relies upon 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This section provides

that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEDDY LEROY WILSON, Jr., CDCR

#78443,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISMAEL BRIZYELA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

REQUESTING ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 31]

On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with a Second Amended Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, filed a motion requesting assistance of counsel.1 Doc. No. 31.

Plaintiff previously requested counsel in this case, but the district

judge denied his request on July 10, 2007, finding that Plaintiff had

failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional circumstances” to

justify appointment of counsel. Doc. No. 22. 

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 33 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

As correctly explained in the district judge’s July 10, 2007 order,

“[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983

action.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also

Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th

Cir. 1994) (“there is no absolute right to counsel in civil

proceedings”). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make

coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04

in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Appointment of

counsel under [28 U.S.C. § 1915] is discretionary, not mandatory”).

District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil

litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A

finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking

assistance requires 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. at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In the instant request, Plaintiff explains that he requires counsel

to conduct legal research for him because the prison law library is

closed and no one has been able to tell him when it will reopen. Doc.

No. 31. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that his requests to have legal

materials brought to him have been denied. Id. Plaintiff believes

these circumstances demonstrate the requisite “exceptional

circumstances” to justify appointment of counsel. Id. 

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 33 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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 06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence

showing that the law library has, in fact, been closed. Nor has he

offered any showing aside from the unsworn allegation in his motion that

the library has denied his requests to have legal materials delivered to

him. Indeed, in his concurrently filed “Motion Requesting Extension of

Time to Respond,” Plaintiff admitted that the librarian told him that if

he sent a request naming specifically what he needed, she would

photocopy that material and mail it back to him. Doc. No. 29. This

belies Plaintiff’s assertion that the library will not provide him with

legal materials. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate that he has been denied access to legal materials

and that he, therefore, cannot articulate his claims. See Agyeman, 390

F.3d at 1103.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court find that Plaintiff has not

alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” and hereby DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Assistance of Counsel [Doc. No. 31].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 33 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 3