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)
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?