Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01872/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01872-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE LEE OAKES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1872-JAH (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 80]

vs.

DR. PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter filed a Motion requesting that

the Court appoint him counsel to assist in his civil rights lawsuit. (Doc. No. 80). In his Motion,

Plaintiff contends that he cannot afford an attorney, has no assistance in preparing or filing

documents, and is a “triple C.M.S. mental health patient” and is disabled. Id. 

“[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

District Court, 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). 

Districts 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. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d

819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both

- 1 - 07cv1872-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:07-cv-01872-JAH-MDD Document 86 Filed 01/19/12 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

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)).

Plaintiff previously filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel on November 4, 2009. (Doc. No.

17). That Motion was considered and denied by then Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. 

(Doc. No. 18). In his Motion, Judge Battaglia found that Plaintiff had not established that

exceptional circumstances required the appointment of counsel. Id. at 2. 

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff alleges identical difficulties to those alleged in his previous

motion. The Court agrees with the previous determination that Plaintiff’s alleged difficulties,

considered in light of Plaintiff’s demonstrated ability to set forth the factual and legal basis for his

claims in a manner that allows them to be addressed on the merits, do not constitute exceptional

circumstances that would require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 19, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 07cv1872-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:07-cv-01872-JAH-MDD Document 86 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2