Burns v. Decarr et al
Filing
70
ORDER denying 69 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/18/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt) (jrl).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NELSON C. BURNS,
CASE NO. 07-CV-1984 JLS (WMc)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER: DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
vs.
13
14
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(ECF No. 69)
DECARR, CROOK, VISTA DETENTION
FACILITY, VISTA SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
On October 31, 2007, Magistrate Judge William McCurrine denied Plaintiff’s initial request
for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.) On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a second
request for appointment of counsel. (Mot., ECF No. 69.) After considering Plaintiff’s submission,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that new “exceptional circumstances” exist to
justify appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
is DENIED.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims. Campbell v. Burt, 141
F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts have
discretion to appoint counsel to represent indigent litigants. This discretion may be exercised only
under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A
finding of exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation
of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to
-1-
07cv1984
1
articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp.
2
of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th
3
Cir. 1986)).
4
Plaintiff requests counsel because this case involves complex legal issues and “at-all-times
5
[sic] Plaintiff has strictly relied upon the assistance of” fellow prisoners to prosecute the action. (Mot.
6
5.) Plaintiff submits that he has “absolutely no understanding as how to effectively prosecute this
7
matter.” (Burns Decl., ECF No. 69.)
8
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s factual assertions and arguments, the Court finds no basis for
9
reversing its prior decision. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, this is not a complex case. Plaintiff
10
complains that Defendants denied him access to necessary medical care and used excessive force
11
against him. (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1.) And regardless of whether Plaintiff’s fellow inmates assisted
12
him in filing and prosecuting this action, Plaintiff has adequately articulated his claims pro se such
13
that the Court can discern both the factual and legal basis of his claims. Indeed, Plaintiff prevailed,
14
in part, against Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 47.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff
15
has a more than sufficient grasp of his case and the legal issues involved, and no exceptional
16
circumstances exist to justify appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second motion for
17
appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is DENIED.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
22
DATED: July 18, 2011
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
07cv1984
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?