Hamilton v. Adamik et al

Filing 173

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 172 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE VADAS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/24/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

BERNARD HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,

5
6

v.

7

OFFICER ADAMIK, et al.,

8

Defendants.
_____________________________/

No. C 06-06268 CW (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;
DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE VADAS
(Docket no. 172)

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

On March 26, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for

11

reconsideration of the order dismissing this action pursuant to the

12

terms of a settlement agreement reached by the parties.

13

reopened the case and referred it to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas,

14

“for further proceedings to determine whether the settlement

15

agreement has been breached and/or whether further Court action is

16

required to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement

17

agreement.”

18

The Court

Order at 3:3-7.

On May 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge Vadas scheduled a telephonic

19

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion alleging breach of the settlement

20

agreement.

21

response brief is due June 12, and Plaintiff’s reply brief is due

22

July 3.

23

The hearing is set for July 18, 2012; Defendants’

Docket no. 171.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel to

24

represent him in further proceedings in this matter because he is

25

concerned that he will not be able to meet the deadlines scheduled

26

by Magistrate Judge Vadas because of upcoming medical appointments.

27
28

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case
unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he

1

loses the litigation.

2

U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.

3

1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action),

4

withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952

5

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

6

represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in

7

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an

8

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and

9

(2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452

The court, however, may ask counsel to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

11

113 F.3d at 1525.

12

before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915.

13

See id.

14

See Rand,

Both of these factors must be viewed together

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling

15

Plaintiff to court appointed counsel do not exist at this time.

16

The likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits cannot be

17

ascertained at this stage of the proceedings, and he has

18

articulated his claims more than adequately.

19

request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

20

Plaintiff shall keep Magistrate Judge Vadas and Defendants’ counsel

21

apprised of any ongoing scheduling concerns.

22
23

Accordingly, the

The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Order to
Magistrate Judge Vadas.

24

This Order terminates Docket no. 172.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: 5/24/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2