Scofield v. Ball et al
Filing
37
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Appointment Counsel without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 4/17/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)(jrd)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT SCOFIELD,
CASE NO. 11cv378-BEN (WMc)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
vs.
13
14
BALL, et al.,
(ECF No. 31)
Defendants.
15
16
17
On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of counsel in the above entitled
18
action. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff contends the Court should appoint counsel to represent him because
19
he is unable to afford counsel,1 the issues are complex, he has limited law library access, he cannot
20
find counsel to represent him, there are numerous defendants, and he has limited knowledge of the
21
law. (Id.) Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion.
22
“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust
23
Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts
24
do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States
25
District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency,
26
54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s reference to the “fee waiver in file” is insufficient for the Court to identify the
precise document upon which Plaintiff relies.
-1-
11cv378-BEN (WMc)
1
Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request”
2
that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.
3
See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d
4
819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both
5
the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se
6
in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and
7
both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,
8
789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
9
After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for the following
10
reasons. First, Plaintiff has not moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and is thus not an
11
indigent civil litigant.2 Second, Plaintiff has survived Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint
12
and he has recently file an amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 27, 33). Thus, Plaintiff has
13
demonstrated a satisfactory aptitude for presenting his claims despite his contention that the issues
14
are complex and he is ignorant of the law. Third, even assuming, arguendo, Plaintiff’s claims have
15
a moderate to high likelihood of success on the merits, the Court nevertheless concludes Plaintiff
16
has failed to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to grant the motion because
17
Plaintiff has thus far demonstrated a satisfactory aptitude for litigating his claims and because the
18
Court does not find the issues to be so complex as to justify the appointment of counsel.
19
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
DATED: April 17, 2012
22
Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court previously permitted Plaintiff to proceed IFP for purposes of service only. (ECF
No. 28).
-2-
11cv378-BEN (WMc)
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?