Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00915/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00915-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Lee Taylor
Plaintiff
Laura Thomas
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. LAURA THOMAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00915-VC (PR)

ORDER DENYING THIRD

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

Docket no. 28

On February 28 and June 4, 2014, Kenneth Lee Taylor filed motions for appointment of 

counsel, which the Court denied because exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of 

counsel were not evident. The Court stated that if, in the future, it determined that it was 

necessary to appoint counsel, it would do so sua sponte. On March 30, 2015, Taylor filed a third

motion for the appointment of counsel arguing that the legal issues are complex and he is unable 

to adequately investigate or present the factual issues regarding his claims. These are the same 

reasons he provided in his previous motions for appointment of counsel.

“[I]t is well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil 

cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to appoint counsel to “any person unable to 

afford counsel.” The discretionary appointment of counsel typically is reserved for cases 

involving “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. 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. 

Case 3:14-cv-00915-VC Document 30 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Taylor’s third motion to appoint counsel is denied because exceptional circumstances 

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. If, in the future, the Court concludes it is 

necessary to appoint counsel to represent Taylor, it shall do so on its own motion. Taylor may not 

keep re-filing the same motion for appointment of counsel.

This Order terminates Docket No. 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2015

_____________________________ 

VINCE CHHABRIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-00915-VC Document 30 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA THOMAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00915-VC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 4/22/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Kenneth Lee Taylor ID: J-89634

Pelican Bay State Prison SHU D9-121 Low

PO Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532 

Dated: 4/22/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA

Case 3:14-cv-00915-VC Document 30 Filed 04/22/15 Page 3 of 3