United States of America v. Mejia

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 10/5/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00509-BEN-WVG

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

JESUS DANIEL MEJIA, a/k/a JESUS
DANIEL MEJIA VELASCO,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

The United States of America has filed a Complaint to revoke the U.S. citizenship

19

of Defendant Jesus Daniel Mejia, also known as Jesus Daniel Mejia Velasco, for

20

concealing a drug offense during the naturalization process. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

21

Defendant has moved for the appointment of counsel, contending that he cannot pay for

22

legal services and is unfamiliar with the law and judicial system. (Mot., ECF No. 9.)

23

Courts have discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (1996), to appoint

24

counsel for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. “A

25

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of

26

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

27

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

28

1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted). “Neither of these factors is dispositive
1
3:16-cv-00509-BEN-WVG

1

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (internal citations

2

omitted).

3

At this time, the Court cannot say there is any likelihood of success on the merits.

4

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an inability to represent himself beyond the

5

ordinary burdens encountered by plaintiffs representing themselves pro se. As to his

6

argument that he cannot afford counsel, “[m]erely alleging indigence is insufficient to

7

entitle him to appointed counsel; he must also demonstrate that he made a good faith

8

effort, but was unable, to obtain counsel.” Garcia v. Smith, No. 10-cv-1187, 2012 WL

9

2499003, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012). Plaintiff has failed to make this showing.

10

Therefore, the Court finds that the exceptional circumstances required for the

11

appointment of counsel are not present. Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 5, 2016

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-00509-BEN-WVG