Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00980/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00980-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Adams
Defendant
Richard Arthur Aguirre
Plaintiff
F. Fields
Defendant
M. Jennings
Defendant
J. Kavanaugh
Defendant
R. Lopez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Richard Aguirre,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. Lopez; D. Adams; F. Fields;

M. Jennings; and J. Kavanaugh,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-980-FRZ

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Arthur Aguirre, confined in the Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP)

in Delano, California, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging, inter alia, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants

deprived him of outdoor exercise from September 29, 2007 to July 9, 2008.

The action is proceeding only as to Count One of the Second Amended Complaint

against Defendants Lopez, Adams, Fields, Jennings and Kavanaugh.

The Court’s original screening order, filed March 24, 2009, denied Plaintiff’s initial

motion for appointment of counsel based on the Court’s finding that this action presents no

“exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel and that Plaintiff is in no

different a position than other pro se litigants who have brought nearly identical claims.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel,

alleging exceptional circumstances due to Plaintiff’s medical condition and medical

treatment.

Case 1:08-cv-00980-FRZ Document 36 Filed 07/21/10 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

Counsel will only be appointed in a civil rights action in which there exists

“exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101,

1103 (9 Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9 Cir. 1991); Wilborn v.

th th

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. 1986). “A finding of the exceptional

th

circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the

likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability

to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman,

390 F.3d at 1103 (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d

952, 954 (9 Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims on the issues presented and

th

his assertions fail to establish the existence of the requisite exceptional circumstances for

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion shall be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc.

28] is DENIED.

DATED this 20 day of July, 2010.

th

- 2 -

Case 1:08-cv-00980-FRZ Document 36 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2