Jordan v. San Francisco Police Dept et al
Filing
84
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Appointment of Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2016)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
GABRIEL L. JORDAN,
Case No. 14-cv-02113-YGR (PR)
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7
J. ESPINOZA, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF DENIAL OF APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Defendants.
8
Plaintiff Gabriel L. Jordan, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical
10
Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
to unconstitutionally excessive force by Defendants in the course of his arrest on May 24, 2012.
12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Request for Appointment of Counsel” (dkt. 75),
13
which will be construed as his Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his request for
14
appointment of counsel.
15
Plaintiff’s initial requests for the appointment of counsel were denied.1 He now requests
16
the Court to reconsider its denial of his requests for appointment of counsel. Such a request is
17
hereby DENIED.
18
In his motion for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling and appoint counsel to represent
19
him, Plaintiff proposes that the Court assign counsel for the following reasons: to assist Plaintiff in
20
order to “properly prepare for the settlement conference”; and to “conduct extensive interviews
21
with the transporting Emergency Medical Technicians “EMTs”, and the Emergency Room
22
Physicians,” including “Plaintiff’s treating physician.” Dkt. 75 at 4-5.
23
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may
24
lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S.
25
18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to
26
27
28
1
On April 17, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s initial request for appointment of counsel.
Dkt. 29. On July 22, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel.
Dkt. 41.
1
counsel in a section 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d
2
952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The Court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under
3
28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an
4
evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to
5
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525;
6
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
7
1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on
8
a request for counsel under section 1915. See id.
9
The Court has recently conducted a careful review of all admissible evidence submitted in
connection with Defendants’ previously-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. Taking into
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
consideration this review, and Plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
12
complexity of the legal issues involved, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling
13
Plaintiff to court appointed counsel do not exist at this time. Accordingly, the request that the
14
Court reconsider its initial denial of Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel is DENIED
15
without prejudice to renewing his request if this action is not resolved after the upcoming
16
settlement proceedings.2
17
This Order terminates Docket No. 75.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: April 15, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Court Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
The parties are scheduled to appear before Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for settlement
proceedings on August 15, 2016 at 11:00 am.
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?