Ardds v. Hudge et al

Filing 94

ORDER: The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is Denied without prejudice. (ECF No. 56 ). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

!.'

~

'

i
1

Lw Nev 28 Ali II :I 0

2

-.

3
4

~-

".!

u.

'j -

'r'CIJF:i

,,_/•::,;1f CT\hf;\

'' LC...

5

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,
CDCRNo. P-59915,

11

12
13

v.

CASE NO. 16cv2904-WQH-BLM
Plaintiff,

ORDER

D. HODGE;,...L. ROMERQ~D.
PARAMO;,..t;. BARAM01'ITE; G.
vALDOVu'IOS; RENTERIA;Tc.
GARDINEZ; McGEE; SMITn,

14

Defendants.

15 HAYES, Judge:
16

The matters before the Court is the Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by

17 Plaintiff Antoine Ardds. (ECF No. 56).
18 I.

Procedural Background

19

Antoine L. Ardds ("Plaintiff'), proceeding prose, is currently incarcerated at the

20 Corcoran State Prison, located in Corcoran, California. On November 16, 2016,
21

Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Coloring Agreement," which the Court construed

22

as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In the three months

23

after filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed the following documents: two certified copies

24 of his inmate trust account statement, which the Court construed as a Motion to
25

Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Nos. 2, 15);

26 a Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 8); two documents titled Ex Parte Motions, which
27 the Court construed to be Supplemental Documents in Support of Complaint (ECF
28 Nos. 12, 14); a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6); a Motion to Dismiss
-I -

16cv2904·WQH·BLM

•

1 Improperly Named Defendant (ECF No. 1O); and an Ex Parte Notice (ECF No. 4).
On February 28, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma

2

3 Pauperis, denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, granted the Motion to Dismiss
4 an improperly named defendant, and dismissed the Complaint for failing to state a
5 claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 18).
6

On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (ECF

7 No. 23). On May 4, 2017, this Court found Plaintiff's FAC "contained factual content
8 sufficient to survive the 'low threshold' for proceeding past the sua sponte screening
9 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)." (ECF No. 24 at 9).
10

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF

11

No. 56). The record reflects that Defendants have not filed any response to the motion.

12

On November 22, 2017, the Court issued an Order denying ten motions for

13

injunctive relief filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 93).

14 II.
15

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order appointing counsel to represent him in this

16 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(l). (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff asserts that he is
17 unable to afford counsel and is a mentally disabled pro se prisoner. Id. at 1. Plaintiff
18 contends that "at times, his mental health will greatly limit his ability to litigate." Id.
19 Plaintiff contends that "the issues invoked in this case are complex and will require
20 significant research and investigation, Plaintiff has limited access to the library and
21 limited knowledge of the law." Id.
22
23
24
25

A plaintiff has no absolute right to appointed counsel in a civil proceeding.
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F .3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp.,

32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority "to
make coercive appointments of counsel." Mallardv. US. District Court, 490 U.S. 296,

26 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in US. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569
27
(9th Cir. 1995). District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
28 1915(e)( 1), to "request" that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a
-2-

l6cv2904-WQH-BLM

' ,,

, ' ' (,

1 showing of"exceptional circumstances." See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. ofAm., 390
2 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

"When determining whether 'exceptional

3 circumstances' exist, a court must consider 'the likelihood of success on the merits as
4 well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
5 complexity of the legal issues involved."' Palmer, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)
6 (quoting Weygandtv. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
7

The Court has evaluated the likelihood of success of Plaintiffs claims and

8 Plaintiffs ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues
9 involved. Based on the filings to date, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to
10 articulate his claims. Plaintiff has filed multiple documents with the Court which
11

effectively articulate his legal positions. The Court concludes that it is premature to

12 determine that Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage in the
13 proceedings. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated "exceptional
14 circumstances" supporting the appointment of counsel at this stage in the proceedings.
15 Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970.
16 III.

Conclusion

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is

18 DENIED without prejudice. (ECFNo.56~
19
20 DATED:
21
22

///>"'J//7
WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

l 6cv2904-WQH-BLM