Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02100/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02100-3/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

16cv2100-BTM (MSB)

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 WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CUEVAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2100-BTM (MSB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff Gerald Wilson (“Plaintiff”) submitted a motion for 

appointment of counsel that the Court accepted on discrepancy on December 4, 2018. 

(See ECF Nos. 56 and 57.) Plaintiff’s primary argument in support of his request for 

counsel is that his “failing health will greatly limit his ability to continue to litigate this 

case.” (See ECF No. 57 at 1.) In support of this premise, Plaintiff explains that he has 

developed moderate degenerative arthritis in his cervical spine, he experiences 

cramping in his fingers and toes with severe pain that renders him unable to walk at 

times, he takes pain medication three times daily, and he walks with a cane and is 

permanently disabled. (Id. at 2-3.) He also correctly notes that the case has a pending 

motion to compel with a filing deadline and a Mandatory Settlement Conference set 

before the Court. (Id. at 3.) Additionally, Plaintiff states that he cannot afford an 

attorney; the issues in his case are complex; the defendants appear unwilling to settle;

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 58 Filed 12/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16cv2100-BTM (MSB)

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

an attorney would be able to help with the writing and typing in this case, the 

presentation of evidence, and the cross examination of witnesses; and that his case “will 

suffer great prejudice if the Court does not appoint counsel.” (Id. at 1-3.)

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights case alleging violations of the First and Eighth Amendments against state 

prison correctional officers arising from interactions between Plaintiff and Defendants 

on Janaury 27, 2016, culminating with what Plaintiff described as excessive use of force 

by Defendants against Plaintiff. (Compl. 13-16, ECF No. 1.) Defendants in this case have 

filed both a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 20] and a motion for partial summary judgment

[ECF No. 21]. The District Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of 

Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 

finding that Plaintiff had not administratively exhausted that claim, and denied 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Order 12, 16, ECF No. 29.) 

The Court issued a Case Management Conference Order on February 16, 2018, and will 

hold a Mandatory Settlement Conference on January 16, 2019. (Orders, ECF Nos. 32, 

54.) 

The parties submitted a Joint Discovery Plan on March 15, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) 

Both the instant motion and Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his 

Requests for Production of Documents (ECF No. 50, filed October 15, 2018) are currently

pending before this Court. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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. 

Dep’t Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts 

have the authority to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a 

showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When assessing whether exceptional circumstances exist, the 

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 58 Filed 12/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16cv2100-BTM (MSB)

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

Court must undergo “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.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Courts must review both 

of these factors before deciding whether to appoint counsel, and neither factor is 

individually dispositive. Id. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

A plaintiff that provides no evidence of his likelihood of success at trial fails to 

satisfy the first factor of the Wilborn test. See, e.g., Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 

552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (finding that where the plaintiff offered “no evidence other than his 

own assertions to support his claims,” he failed to satisfy the first Wilborn factor). The 

Court notes that Plaintiff has not presented evidence to the Court regarding the 

likelihood of his success on the merits of his two remaining claims for Excessive Use of 

Force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment. (See ECF No. 29.) Though the allegations Plaintiff raised in his complaint 

regarding his two remaining claims are sufficient to state a claim for relief (see ECF Nos. 

1 and 29), it is premature for the Court to determine the strength of his claims. For this 

reason, this factor does not support the appointment of counsel. 

B. Plaintiff’s Ability to Articulate his Claims 

Where a pro se civil rights plaintiff shows he has a good grasp of basic litigation 

procedure and has articulated his claims adequately, he does not demonstrate the 

exceptional circumstances required for the appointment of counsel. See Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that the second Wilborn factor was not 

satisfied where the District Court observed Plaintiff “was well-organized, made clear 

points, and presented evidence effectively”). The Court has reviewed all of the 

documents filed by Plaintiff in this case including the instant motion, the complaint [ECF 

No. 1], Declaration [ECF No. 5], motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 6], notices

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 58 Filed 12/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16cv2100-BTM (MSB)

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

of change of address [ECF Nos. 7, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42], motion for extension of 

time to file opposition [ECF No. 24], response in opposition to motion for partial 

summary judgment [ECF No. 27], response to Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 30], Notice, 

Consent, and Reference of a Civil Case to a Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 36], motion for 

leave to appear telephonically at Mandatory Settlement Conference [ECF No. 46], and 

motion to compel responses to discovery [ECF No. 50]. From this review, it is clear to 

the Court that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and navigate civil procedure 

without legal assistance. Although Plaintiff claims this case is complex [ECF No. 57 at 2], 

the Court notes that the two claims remaining in the case have been clearly pled and 

survived Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF No. 29.) Additionally, the parties 

have represented that discovery in the case “will not be extensive” and is “very 

focused.” (Joint Discovery Plan, ECF No. 34 at 4.) 

Plaintiff’s submissions to date and the parties representations in the Joint 

Discovery Plan demonstrate to the Court that the complexity of this case does not 

exceed Plaintff’s abilities. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s identified health 

concerns, it does not appear that the described conditions are exceptional 

circumstances that interfere with his continued ability to advocate for his position, such 

that they justify appointment of counsel. To the extent that Plaintiff requests an 

attorney to assist him with presentation of evidence and cross examination of 

witnesses, most prisoners in civil rights cases would prefer the expertise of an attorney. 

As such, lacking legal expertise is the norm rather than an exceptional circumstance. 

See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990) (denying 

appointment of counsel where plaintiff complained that he had limited access to law 

library and lacked a legal education). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Viewing the Wilborn factors together, Plaintiff has not shown that he enjoys a 

likelihood of success on the merits or that he is not able to articulate his claims and 

litigate his case without the assistance of an attorney. The Court finds Plaintiff has not 

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 58 Filed 12/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16cv2100-BTM (MSB)

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

established exceptional circumstances required for the appointment of counsel 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 7, 2018

______________________________

Honorable Michael S. Berg

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02100-BTM-MSB Document 58 Filed 12/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5