Eusse, Jr. v. Vitela et al

Filing 40

ORDER Denying without Prejudice Plaintiff's 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 2/12/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES EUSSE, JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 MARCO VITELA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 13-CV-916 BEN (NLS) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Dkt. No. 39) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 39.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, argues that the complexity of this case, restrictions on law library access, and eighth grade education will limit his ability to litigate this case. He also argues that counsel will help him present evidence and cross examine witnesses at trial. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ 1 13-CV-916 BEN (NLS) 1 Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a 2 decision.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 3 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 4 Up to this point, Plaintiff has shown himself capable of litigating this action. 5 Additionally, Plaintiff has not yet shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, 6 Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is not warranted by the interests of justice. 7 LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court DENIES 8 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff may 9 renew his motion if he so chooses at a later stage in the litigation. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 DATED: February 12, 2015 13 14 15 Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 13-CV-916 BEN (NLS)

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?