Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02690/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02690-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

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 

GARY McCHAIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO: 10-CV-2690-IEG (WMC) 

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2] AND (2) DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 3] 

On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed what appears to be a claim of medical malpractice 

against the Veterans Administration. (Doc. No. 1.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gary 

McChain’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), and Request for 

Appointment of Counsel Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Doc. No. 3). For the reasons stated 

herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. 

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, 

except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 3:10-cv-02690-AJB-WMC Document 4 Filed 01/11/11 Page 1 of 3
 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

1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff 

is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 

169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets and finds the affidavit sufficiently shows 

that he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and further finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is not subject to sua 

sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

II. Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) 

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), which 

provides for mandatory appointment of counsel for claims of employment discrimination under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See Storman v. 

Sacramento Reg’l Transit Dist., 70 Fed. Appx. 438, 440 (9th Cir. 2003). It does not appear from the 

face of Plaintiff’s complaint that he raises any employment discrimination claim under either Act. 

The Court also notes that 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.” Palmer 

v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 

evaluation of both the “likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate 

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

considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint does not appear to raise particularly complex legal issues. At 

this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not believe appointment of counsel is necessary. 

Therefore, the Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. 

// 

// 

Case 3:10-cv-02690-AJB-WMC Document 4 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 3
 3

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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and ORDERS as follows: 

 1. The Clerk of Court shall file the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee. 

 2. The Clerk shall issue a summons for the Defendant Veterans Administration and 

forward it to Plaintiff. 

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon 

Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration of the 

Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate 

stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on defendants or 

counsel of defendants and the date of service. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate 

judge which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be 

disregarded by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _______________________________ 

 IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge 

 United States District Court 

 

January 11, 2011

Case 3:10-cv-02690-AJB-WMC Document 4 Filed 01/11/11 Page 3 of 3