Hawkins v. USA

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING as MOOT Plaintiff's 77 Motion for Objection and Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by District Judge G. Murray Snow on 10/2/2009. (Sondheim, M)

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 vs. U n ite d States of America, D e f e n d a n t. C h a r le s Hawkins, P la in tif f , ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . 1:04-cv-5771-GMS ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

P e n d i n g before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Objection to the Rescheduling R e q u e st by the Government to Modify the Scheduling Order and Motion for the A p p o in tm e n t of Counsel (Dkt. # 77). The Court has already ruled on the Motion to Modify th e Scheduling Order and thus the objections are moot. Plaintiff also requests the

a p p o in tm e n t of counsel because he has limited resources to handle the case. T h e re is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. o f Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, does h a v e the discretion to appoint counsel in "exceptional circumstances." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. A l d a b e, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). "A finding of exceptional circumstances re q u ire s an evaluation of both `the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the p e titio n e r to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues in v o lv e d .'" Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331(quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th C ir. 1983)); see Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). "Neither of these

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

f a cto rs is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on re q u e s t of counsel" under section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. H a v in g considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While Plaintiff has p o in te d to limited resource difficulties that he is experiencing, such difficulties do not make h is case exceptional. Accordingly, at the present time, this case does not present

" e x ce p tio n a l circumstances" requiring the appointment of counsel. Therefore, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Objection as moot and P lain tiff 's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. # 77). D A T E D this 2nd day of October, 2009.

-2-