Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00360/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00360-0/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

09cv360

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,

CDCR #V-15331,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden; 

JASON SILVA, Doctor,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-CV-360-JAH (JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 16]

Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke, a former state prisoner currently held in the San

Diego Central Jail and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1] Plaintiff has submitted a motion in which he

requests that the Court appoint counsel for him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc.

No. 16] For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is requesting appointment of counsel because he is a lay person. He

also argues, without support, that his case has a likelihood of success on the merits.

“[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 appoint counsel

for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v.

Case 3:09-cv-00360-JAH-JMA Document 17 Filed 08/11/09 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 09cv360

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before reaching a decision.’” Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal bases of

his claim with sufficient clarity. Indeed, Plaintiff has been successful in getting a

Complaint on file, successfully filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

successfully filing a motion for leave to amend the complaint, filing additional motions

(denied as moot) and effecting service on defendants. Based on the information

currently before the Court, it appears that Plaintiff has the competence and ability to

pursue his case. Without more, this Court cannot conclude that there are “exceptional

circumstances” which would warrant the appointment of counsel in Plaintiff’s case. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2009

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00360-JAH-JMA Document 17 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2