Martinez v. Madden et al

Filing 35

ORDER Denying 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 9/18/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

RONALD MARTINEZ ,

Case No.: 12cv1298-GPC (MDD)

Plaintiff,

6
7

v.

ORDER DENYING
PLAINT’FF'S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

8

R. MADDEN, et al.,

[ECF No. 31]

9

Defendants.

10
11

On September 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of

12

Counsel. (ECF No. 31.) In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that counsel

13

should be appointed because 1) he is indigent and lacks legal training to

14

represent himself in his complex claims, 2) Defendants are invoking the

15

“official information privilege” and the “critical self-analysis privilege”

16

to avoid producing documents and information Plaintiff has demanded,

17

3) appointment of counsel for Plaintiff will enable him to develop his

18

case more efficiently, and 4) Plaintiff has sought pro bono

19

representation from several attorneys without success. (Id. at 2-3).
1
12cv1298-GPC(MDD)

1

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”

2

Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994)

3

(citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to

4

make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States

5

District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v.

6

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).

7

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

8

1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil

9

litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v.

10

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King,

11

883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional

12

circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success

13

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

14

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of

15

these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

16

reaching a decision.’” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v.

17

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

18

Plaintiff has not stated exceptional circumstances that would

19

justify the appointment of counsel. A review of the Complaint and
2
12cv1298-GPC(MDD)

1

Plaintiff’s other filings indicate that Plaintiff is able to articulate and

2

pursue his claims. Further, the claims presented in the Complaint are

3

not overly complex and Plaintiff has not demonstrated a strong

4

likelihood of success. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: September 18, 2014

9
10
11
12

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3
12cv1298-GPC(MDD)