Bustamante v. Superior Court of California et al

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-3492 SBA (PR)

JOHN BUSTAMANTE,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action.

18

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose

19

his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25

20

(1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in

21

§ 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)

22

(en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only

23

in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the

24

likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se

25

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

26

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

27

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under

28

§ 1915. See id.

1

The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which

2

would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are at

3

an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the

4

merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of the

5

complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th

6

Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

7

This Order terminates Docket no. 7.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED:

2/1/12
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN BUSTAMATE,

4
5
6
7

Case Number: CV11-03492 SBA
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CA et al,
Defendant.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

/

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 February 1, 2012, 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.

13
14

16

John Bustamante
102247 Pistachio Way
Sacramento, CA 95827

17

Dated: February 1, 2012

15

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Bustamante3492.DenyAtty.wpd

3