Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00145/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00145-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE PINEDA IBARRA, Case No. 1:07-cv-0145 OWW NEW (TAG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 v. (Doc. 16)

MR. JOHN DOE (WALLACE),

CHIEF JOHN DOE INSURANCE INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff Jorge Pineda Ibarra, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2). On September 10, 2007 and

September 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed motions for appointment of counsel, which were denied on

September 18, 2007. (Docs. 12, 13, 14). On September 24, Plaintiff filed another motion for

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 16).

Plaintiff contends that the appointment of counsel is necessary because he cannot afford to

hire an attorney to represent him and the issues in his civil action are complex, necessitating access

to legal materials that he does not have in prison. (Doc. 16). This is a civil case. There is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

25 (1981). When a plaintiff is indigent, the court lacks the authority to order an attorney to represent

him. Instead, the court may request that an attorney represent the person, but should do so only if

there are “exceptional circumstances.” See Aldabe v. Adalbe, 616 F. 2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir 1980);

Case 1:07-cv-00145-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 10/01/07 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

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The likelihood that a pro se litigant would be better served if he were

represented by an attorney, does not necessarily mean that the issues in the case are complex, or that

the appointment of counsel is warranted. 

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and considered Plaintiff’s likelihood of success

on the merits and his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the issues

involved. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege that a person acting under color of

law committed a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that

Plaintiff’s employer, defendant Wallace, proximately caused the deprivation of any such right. On

August 3, 2007, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, and recommended to the District Judge assigned to this case, that

the complaint be dismissed. (Doc. 9). The Court concludes that no exceptional circumstances exist

that justify the appointment of counsel in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 16) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00145-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2