Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02039/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02039-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

18-CV-2039-LAB(WVG) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PARAMO et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 18-CV-2039-LAB(WVG) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 43] 

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to prosecute this civil rights case. However, 

the Court concludes appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other 

grounds). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments 

of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 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). 

Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 

1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 

exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 

Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance 

Case 3:18-cv-02039-LAB-WVG Document 44 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

18-CV-2039-LAB(WVG) 

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

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.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

The Court agrees that any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance 

of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff 

in this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” 

the exceptional circumstances which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when 

district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well 

have fared better-particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony”). 

Here, Plaintiff's reasons for requesting appointed counsel—lack of money to pay an 

attorney, his incarceration, and lack of legal knowledge—are not unique to him and are 

common traits of prisoner plaintiffs. Nor is this case complex. Moreover, upon reviewing 

the Complaint, the Court concludes Plaintiff has been able to cogently articulate his claims. 

Were the Court to appoint counsel in this case, the exception would swallow the rule and 

the Court would be compelled to appoint counsel in every case. Petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2020 

V 

Hon. William V. Gallo 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-02039-LAB-WVG Document 44 Filed 01/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2