McGinnis v. Ramos
Filing
22
ORDER denying 21 Motion to Request Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 12/9/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kcm)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
Anthony McGinnis,
Case No.: 15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
Order Denying Motion to Request
Appointment of Counsel
v.
A.T. Ramos,
10
[ECF No. 21]
Defendant.
11
12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the appointment of counsel (ECF
13
No. 21). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s request for counsel in conjunction with the case
14
record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for the Court to appoint
15
him counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
16
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in §1983 cases.
17
Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “However, a court may under
18
‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants.” Palmer v. Valdez,
19
560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§1983 action), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1282 (2010).
20
“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the
21
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his
22
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting
23
Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)).
24
First, Plaintiff offers no argument to the effect that he has a likelihood of success on
25
the merits. Arguably, “it is too early to determine the likelihood of success on the merits”
26
given that “it is not certain whether” Plaintiff’s amended complaint will survive
27
Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss and anticipated motion for summary judgment. See
28
Garcia v. Smith, No. 10cv1187-AJB-RBB, 2012 WL 2499003, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27,
1
15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB
1
2012) (citations omitted). Therefore, the first “exceptional circumstances” factor does not
2
support Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.
3
Second, Plaintiff argues circumstances exist for the appointment of counsel because
4
he cannot prosecute his case effectively given his status as a state prisoner, limited access
5
to the law library, lack of knowledge, education, and training about the law, indigent status,
6
and the complexity of the case. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an inability
7
to represent himself beyond the ordinary burdens encountered by prisoners representing
8
themselves pro se. And, although Plaintiff argues this case is complex, Plaintiff’s filings
9
to date are well-written and demonstrate that he is able understand and articulate the
10
essential facts supporting his claims. Thus, at least at this initial pleading stage, the Court
11
finds Plaintiff has demonstrated and an adequate understanding of the relevant facts as well
12
as the legal issues involved. Therefore, the second “exceptional circumstances” factor also
13
does not support Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.
14
15
Plaintiff’s request for counsel is denied.
Dated: December 9, 2016
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB
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?