Edmonds v. Alameda County District Attorney et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
CRAIG A. EDMONDS, JR.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14

ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-4320 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

(Docket No. 21)

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint,

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 18.) On May 29, 2013, the Court dismissed the

19

complaint with leave to amend. (Docket No. 20.) The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion to

20

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because the Court had already granted Plaintiff leave to

21

proceed IFP. Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 21.)

22

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 21) is DENIED for want of

23

exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also

24

Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to

25

counsel in a civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex, and Plaintiff has

26

thus far been able to adequately present his claims.

27

To the extent that Plaintiff requests counsel to pursue a motion to reconsider the denial of

28

his motion to proceed IFP, the motion is denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff was granted IFP status
Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Edmonds32deny-atty.wpd

1

on October 21, 2011. (Docket No. 5.)

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: 6/21/13
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.11\Edmonds32deny-atty.wpd

2