Buchanan v. Garikaparthi et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 6/1/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TORRY BUCHANAN,

Case No.: 15cv59-BEN-MDD
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

DR. A. GARIKAPARTHI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 44]

16
17

On May 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of counsel. (ECF

18

No. 44). Plaintiff requests counsel be appointed to assist him because he is

19

an indigent prisoner, Plaintiff is a layperson with “limited access to the law

20

library and limited knowledge of the law,” and Plaintiff “does not have the

21

experience of legal qualifications to confront testimony or to cross examine”

22

Defendants’ expert witnesses or to present his own evidence. (Id. at 1-2). In

23

support, Plaintiff attaches Defendant Garikaparthi’s expert witness

24

designation and expert report. (Id. at 4-143). For the reasons stated herein,

25

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

26

There is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases. Lassiter v.

27

Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). District courts have
1
15cv59-BEN-MDD

1

discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant, but this

2

discretion is rarely exercised and only under “exceptional circumstances.”

3

Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A

4

finding of exceptional circumstances requires “an evaluation of the likelihood

5

of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s

6

ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues

7

involved.’” Id. at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

8

(9th Cir. 1986)).

9

Plaintiff has litigated this case for over two years without assistance of

10

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

11

claims, his pleading survived the early screening process, and he participated

12

in a Mandatory Settlement Conference before this Court on May 26, 2017.

13

(See ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4, 13, 25, 42). Additionally, Plaintiff’s remaining claims

14

are not particularly complex, and although sufficiently plead to survive

15

screening, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the

16

merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated “exceptional

17

circumstances” and his motion is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: June 1, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
15cv59-BEN-MDD