Lopez v. Giurbino et al

Filing 55

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Court Denies Plaintiff's request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 5/20/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MICHAEL ANTHONY LOPEZ,

13
14
15

v.
GJ GIURBINO et al.,

Plaintiff,
Defendants.

16

CASE NO. 11-CV-1079-BTM(PCL)
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[Doc. No. 50]

17
18
19

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. No.

20

50.] Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil

21

action. Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v.

22

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under

23

“exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28

24

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. Of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.

25

2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When

26

determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the

27

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

28

claims pro se in light of the complexity view together. Wilborn v. Escalderson, 789 F.2d
1

11-CV-1079-BTM-(PCL)

1

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Neither of these factors are dispositive and both must be

2

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

3

(9th Cir.1986).

4

In this case, Plaintiff states that he requires the assistance of counsel. [Doc. No. 50.]

5

However, there is no evidence before this Court to suggest the presence of “exceptional

6

circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has not provided any

7

information to support a finding of a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, the

8

Plaintiff demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the legal process to be an able litigant

9

which is evidenced by his detailed Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. [Doc.

10
11

No. 51.]
Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice,

12

as neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of

13

counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935

14

F.2d at 1017.

15

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

DATE: May 20, 2013
Peter C. Lewis
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

21
22
23

cc: The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
All Counsel of Record

24
25
26
27
28
2

11-CV-1079-BTM-(PCL)