Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01130/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01130-5/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 07cv1130

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID VELASQUEZ, Civil No. 07cv1130-LAB (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 63]

v.

A. BARRIOS; C. GRAY; C. ROBERTSON; M.

LEVIN; F. PASCUA; R. TORREZ; JUAN

GONZALEZ; FRANK B. FLINT; S. THOMAS;

C. HALL; N. GRANNIS; and L.E. SCRIBNER,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June

11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. No. 63.] In the request, Plaintiff

indicates that he is unable to afford counsel, the issues involved in the case are complex, he is in the

security housing unit for 22 1/2 hours a day, and he has a reading level of 3.3. As such, Plaintiff requests

that this Court appoint an attorney who can assist him in prosecuting this civil action. For the reasons

set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

“[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). 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. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v.

County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “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

Case 3:07-cv-01130-LAB-KSC Document 67 Filed 06/18/08 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 07cv1130

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, 935 F.2d at 1017

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

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated in a number of filings and correspondences with the Court that

he has a sufficient grasp of his case and the legal issues involved, and is able to adequately articulate the

basis of his complaint. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success or that the complexity

of the case requires appointment of counsel. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 18, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01130-LAB-KSC Document 67 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 2