Pinola v. California Correctional Health Care Services et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 17 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RATAJA PINOLA,

Case No. 13-cv-05871-SBA (PR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this prisoner civil rights action

14

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an

15

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of

16

Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). The court may seek counsel to represent an indigent litigant

17

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires

18

an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff

19

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at

20

1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

21

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a

22

decision on a request for counsel under section 1915. See id.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

1

prejudice.1

2

This Order terminates Docket no. 17.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: 7/31/2014
______________________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

5
6
7

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.13\Pinola5871.ATTYdeny.docx

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court may of course consider appointing of counsel later in the proceedings; that is,
after Defendants have filed their dispositive motion. At that time, the Court will be in a better
position to consider the procedural and substantive matters at issue. Plaintiff may therefore file a
renewed motion for the appointment of counsel after Defendants’ dispositive motion has been
filed.
2