Brown v. Gore et al

Filing 107

ORDER Denying 88 Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Reconsideration for the Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 9/12/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MARK BROWN, II,

CASE NO. 12-cv-1938-GPC(BGS)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING
RECONSIDERATION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.
13
14
15
16
17

WILLIAM D. GORE; FRANK C.
CLAMSER; DEPUTY #1; DEPUTY
VILLAREALL; DEPUTY #3 DEPUTY
WEBBER; DEPUTY #5,

[Doc. No. 88]

Defendants.

18

On July 16, 2013, Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown, II, a prisoner proceeding pro se and

19

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action, filed a motion requesting reconsideration

20

of motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 88.)

21

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel for the following reasons: (1) he is proceeding

22

IFP, and he cannot afford to retain legal representation; (2) the case is complex; (3) he, as a

23

non-criminal pro-per inmate has no access to the law library; (4) he has attempted but failed

24

to retain legal representation; (5) he has limited knowledge of the law; (6) he was served with

25

a motion to quash 5 subpoenas, and motion for protective order by Defendants; and (7)

26

Defendants’ counsel will not cooperate with Plaintiff’s discovery. (Doc. No. 88.)

27

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v.

28

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349,
-1-

12cv1938-GPC

1

1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360,

2

1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation

3

omitted).

4

District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1), to

5

“request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional

6

circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.

7

2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff

8

seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on

9

the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the

10

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v.

11

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

12

1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

13

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

14

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

15

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Plaintiff has thus far been able

16

to articulate his claims, as the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations

17

sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and

18

1915A(b). (See Doc. No. 6 at 5.)

19

In addition, the Court denied Plaintiff’s prior request for appoint of counsel on

20

December 20, 2012, and June 25, 2013. It does not appear that the legal issues involved have

21

now became so complex that counsel is warranted at this stage of proceeding. See Wilborn v.

22

Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, “If all that was required to

23

establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need

24

for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”).

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: September 12, 2013

27
28

____________________________
Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
-2-

12cv1938-GPC