Aguirre v. Lopez et al
ORDER denying 28 Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Frank R. Zapata on 7/20/2010. (Vasquez, J)
(PC) Aguirre v. Lopez et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P la in tif f 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 a lle g in g , inter alia, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants d e p riv e d him of outdoor exercise from September 29, 2007 to July 9, 2008. T h e action is proceeding only as to Count One of the Second Amended Complaint a g a in s t Defendants Lopez, Adams, Fields, Jennings and Kavanaugh. T h e Court's original screening order, filed March 24, 2009, denied Plaintiff's initial m o tio n for appointment of counsel based on the Court's finding that this action presents no " e x c e p tio n a l circumstances" requiring the appointment of counsel and that Plaintiff is in no d if f e re n t 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, a lle g in g exceptional circumstances due to Plaintiff's medical condition and medical tre a tm e n t. vs. R . Lopez; D. Adams; F. Fields; M. Jennings; and J. Kavanaugh, Richard Aguirre, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . CV 1-08-980-FRZ ORDER I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
C o u n s e l will only be appointed in a civil rights action in which there exists " e x c e p tio n a l circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1 1 0 3 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. E sc a ld e r o n , 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). "A finding of the exceptional
c irc u m s ta n c e s of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the lik e lih o o d 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, 3 9 0 F.3d at 1103 (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 9 5 2 , 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims on the issues presented and h is assertions fail to establish the existence of the requisite exceptional circumstances for a p p o in tm e n t of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's renewed motion shall be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 2 8 ] is DENIED.
D A T E D this 20 th day of July, 2010.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?