Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02084/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

James S. Leoni, Jr., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

Sec. Hillary R. Clinton; Sec. Janet

Napolitano; U.S.A.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12cv2084 AJB (DHB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 2]

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order appointing counsel for him in this civil rights action

alleging that Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is unconstitutional. On

August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel under the Civil Rights Act of

1964. (Doc. No. 2). The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel indicates an employment

discrimination action unrelated to his civil rights claim. Based upon Plaintiff’s application and a review

of the Complaint, the Court concludes that there is no basis for appointment of counsel. 

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp.

(In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have

the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States 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). 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.

1 12cv2084 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02084-AJB-DHB Document 4 Filed 09/10/12 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

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. Cnty. 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 dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, this Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist so as to justify an

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has set forth the factual and legal basis for his claim in a

straightforward and intelligent manner with sufficient clarity to allow it to be addressed on the merits. 

Plaintiff’s legal claim, and the factual bases for his claim, is not so complex as to require the

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds no “exceptional circumstances” requiring the

appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at this time. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 12cv2084 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02084-AJB-DHB Document 4 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 2