Woodall v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 111

ORDER Denying 109 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and stay of action. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 6/4/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHAWN WOODALL,

Civil
No.

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
STAY OF ACTION
(ECF No. 109)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 109) in which he

18

requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action. The

19

Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent

20

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

21

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

22

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

23

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

24

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success

25

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

26

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

27

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

28

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
1

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)

1

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

2

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

3

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

4

In addition, Plaintiff seeks a stay of this action until July 9, 2012, “due to [Plaintiff’s]

5

circumstances.” (ECF No. 109 at 1.) However, at this time, Defendants have not yet appeared

6

in the action and there are no pending Motions. There is no basis upon which a stay at this time

7

is necessary. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this action to July 9, 2012, is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

DATED: June 4, 2012
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)