Culler v. San Quentin Medical Service et al
Filing
7
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/23/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C 13-03871 KAW (PR)
JERRYAL JEROME CULLER SR.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAN QUENTIN MEDICAL SERVICE et al,
Defendants.
/
13
14
In his complaint, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel to represent him in this action.
15
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose
16
his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25
17
(1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in
18
§ 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)
19
(en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only
20
in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the
21
likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se
22
in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
23
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of
24
these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under
25
§ 1915. See id.
26
The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which
27
would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are at
28
an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the
G:\PRO-SE\KAW\CR.2013\Culler3871.AttyDenial.frm
1
merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of the
2
complexity of the issues involved. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED
3
without prejudice. This does not mean, however, that the Court will not consider appointment of
4
counsel at a later juncture in the proceedings; that is, after Defendants have filed their dispositive
5
motion such that the Court will be in a better position to consider the procedural and substantive
6
matters at issue. Therefore, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel after
7
Defendants' dispositive motion has been filed. If the Court decides that appointment of counsel is
8
warranted at that time, it will seek volunteer counsel to agree to represent Plaintiff pro bono.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Dated: 10/23/13
11
_________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\KAW\CR.2013\Culler3871.AttyDenial.frm
2
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?