Buchanan v. Garikaparthi et al

Filing 11

ORDER Denying 10 Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 5/27/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 15cv59-BEN-MDD
TORRY BUCHANAN,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT PRO BONO
COUNSEL

v.
DR. A. GARIKAPARTHI, et al.,

12

Defendants.

[ECF No. 10]

13
14

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

15

10). The Court has reviewed the submission and DENIES Petitioner’s

16

Motion for the reasons stated below.

17

Plaintiff claims that he is unable to afford counsel. He further claims

18

that, “[i]mprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate.” He explains

19

that the issues he is faced with in this case will require a significant amount

20

of research and investigation, which is difficult due to his limited access to

21

law libraries and limited knowledge of the law. Plaintiff further argues that

22

he needs counsel appointed for trial purposes. Finally, Plaintiff mentions his

23

comprehension is below average. Plaintiff does not attach any exhibits in

24

support of his claims.

25

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v.

26

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Districts courts have discretion

27

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent
1
15cv59-BEN-MDD

1

indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Terrell

2

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional

3

circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the

4

merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light

5

of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors is

6

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

7

at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

8

Plaintiff has litigated this case for over a year without assistance of

9

counsel. In that time, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his

10

claims and his pleading survived the early screening process. (See ECF No.

11

1, 3, 4). While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff claims his

12

comprehension is below average, Plaintiff has not supported that claim with

13

any evidence. Further, Plaintiff’s remaining claims are not particularly

14

complex, and although sufficiently plead to survive screening Plaintiff has

15

not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, Plaintiff has

16

not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” required for the Court to

17

appoint counsel.

18

In light of Plaintiff’s present ability to articulate his claims and the

19

complexity of the case, Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is

20

DENIED without prejudice.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: May 27, 2016

25
26
27
2
15cv59-BEN-MDD