Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00438/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00438-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. COOK, R.H., MEISEL, N. BARRERAS,

MAJID MANI,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08CV438-H(LSP)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc.

18)

Plaintiff Ricardo Lopez 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 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). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons 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 [her] 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.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

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

/ /

Case 3:08-cv-00438-H-WVG Document 23 Filed 12/05/08 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

Here, it appears that plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is

able to adequately articulate the basis of his complaint. His pro se pleading survived the initial

screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, he has effected service of his Amended

Complaint and Summons on all Defendants, and has filed an articulate opposition brief to a motion to

dismiss filed by Defendant Majid Mani. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s

request for appointment of counsel because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

DATED: December 5, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00438-H-WVG Document 23 Filed 12/05/08 Page 2 of 2