Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00287/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00287-1/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 11-cv-0287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD ANTHONY VELARDE, Civil No. 11-cv-0287-AJB (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

E. DUARTE,

Defendants.

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

February 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. [Doc. No. 3.] On February 16, 2011, the

motion was denied. [Doc. No. 4.] On June 27, plaintiff filed another Motion for Appointment of

Counsel. [Doc. No. 12.] In support of his request, Plaintiff contends that he is unable to afford counsel,

and his imprisonment will limit his ability to adequately litigate the case. 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

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is

Case 3:11-cv-00287-AJB-KSC Document 13 Filed 06/27/11 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 11-cv-0287

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, it appears that plaintiff 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, while plaintiff summarily states

that the issues involved in this case are complex, he has not shown a likelihood of success or that the

complexity of the case requires appointment of counsel. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES

without prejudice 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 27, 2011

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00287-AJB-KSC Document 13 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 2