Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05142/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05142-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice; Granting Request for Copy of Complaint 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Martin142denatty 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE S. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

DEVERIES, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5142 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

GRANTING REQUEST FOR

COPY OF COMPLAINT 

(Docket Nos. 5, 6)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) officials. Plaintiff has

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. Plaintiff has

filed a motion to appoint counsel and a request for a copy of his complaint. The Court

will DENY Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 6) without prejudice

and GRANT Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his complaint (docket no. 5). 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\ 

*original filed 3/15/07

Case 5:05-cv-05142-JF Document 8 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice; Granting Request for Copy of Complaint 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Martin142denatty 2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff contends that appointment

of counsel is necessary because he is indigent, he cannot afford to hire counsel and the

issues involved are complex. Plaintiff maintains that because he is incarcerated it is

difficult for him to litigate this case. See Plaintiff’s Mot. at 1-2. 

However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v.

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district

court only the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). 

As the Court has not reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine

whether the claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court concludes that

appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel (docket no. 6) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew

his request for counsel at a later stage of the proceedings, if appropriate. 

Case 5:05-cv-05142-JF Document 8 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice; Granting Request for Copy of Complaint 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Martin142denatty 3

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 6) is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his complaint (docket no. 5) is GRANTED. A copy of

the complaint is enclosed with this order. No further requests for copies will be granted

unless Plaintiff submits the enclosed copy request form attached to this order to the Clerk

and pays $.50 per page in advance. The Court will review Plaintiff’s complaint in a

separate written order. 

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change

of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do

so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/14/07 JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05142-JF Document 8 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice; Granting Request for Copy of Complaint 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Martin142denatty 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Ronnie S. Martin 

T-64750

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960-1060

Case 5:05-cv-05142-JF Document 8 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 4