Siller et al v. Aloya et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 20 Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/22/2014. (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
12
13
14
15
16

MARIA E. SILLER, CLAYTON
SILLER,
v.

Plaintiffs,

STEPHEN ALOYA, et al.,

CASE NO. 14cv1810-GPC (MDD)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
[ECF NO. 20]

Defendants.
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se with a civil Complaint [ECF No. 1] has

17 submitted a motion in which they request that the Court appoint counsel
18 for them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). [ECF No. 20].
19

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

20 Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th
21 Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have the
22 authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United
23 States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v.
24 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).
25
Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
26 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants
27 upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935
28 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819,
-1-

14cv1810-GPC (MDD)

1 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an
2 evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability
3 of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of
4 the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both
5 must be viewed together before reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting
6 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
7

Here, it appears that Plaintiffs have a sufficient grasp of their case,

8 the legal issues involved, and are able to adequately articulate the basis
9 of their claims. Additionally, the Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiffs
10 have already effected service of their Complaint and summons upon five
11 of the named Defendants in the case.
12

Conclusion and Order

13

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds

14 that Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to show the
15 “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel
16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without
17 prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [ECF. No. 20].
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 DATED: October 22, 2014
21
22
23

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

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv1810-GPC (MDD)