Cleon Neal Jones v. Dr Ajmel Sangha MD et al

Filing 27

ORDER Denying 25 Without Prejudice Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 1/14/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Cleon Neal Jones, CASE NO. 14cv2828 GPC (PCL) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 25.) Dr. Ajmel Sangha, M.D., et al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested appointment of counsel to pursue his 20 complaint for civil rights violations brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, 21 the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 22 The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, unless an indigent 23 litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 24 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to 25 appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional 26 circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional 27 circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 28 the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ 1 1 Neither of these issues are dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 2 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 3 Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford the assistance of counsel in pursuing his complaint and 4 that he has limited access to a law library and limited knowledge of the law. (See Doc. 25.) However, it 5 is evident by his detailed complaint that Plaintiff has a sufficient understanding of the legal process. 6 (Doc.6.) Plaintiff displays an adequate understanding of jurisdiction and venue, the parties involved, the 7 causes of action and demand for relief. (Id.) Also, Plaintiff has not attempted to demonstrate a 8 likelihood of success on the merits. 9 Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the 10 interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere 11 v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 12 Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: January 14, 2016 15 16 17 18 19 20 Peter C. Lewis United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?