Starkey v. Hernandez et al
Filing
13
ORDER Denying 12 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 11/29/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)
1
2
3
4
:l5t'
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ADAM MICHAEL STARKEY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
EDWARD HERNANDEZ, et al.,
15
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[Doc. No. 12]
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff Adam M. Starkey, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19 pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before this Court is Plaintiff's
20
Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. No. 12]. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint
21
counsel for him because, inter alia, he "is unable to afford counsel[, ... ] has limited access
22
to the prison's law library and limited knowledge of the law." [Id., at pp. 1-2.] Plaintiff
23
further contends that his "imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate [because]
24
the issues involved in this case are complex and will require significant research and
25
investigation." [Id.] Lastly, Plaintiff asserts that "a trial in this case [would] likely involve
26
conflicting testimony and counsel would better enable [him] to present evidence and cross
27
examine witnesses." [Id.] For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for
28
Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
3: 17-cv-O 1158-JLS-KSC
1
DISCUSSION
2
"There is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings." Hedges v. Resolution
3
Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). District Courts have discretion, however,
4
pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(c)(l) to "request" that an attorney represent indigent civil
5
litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
6
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989).
7
"A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the 'likelihood of
8
success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light
9
of the complexity of the legal issues involved.' Neither of these issues is dispositive and
10
both must be viewed together before making a decision."
Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017
11
(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
12
Here, there is nothing to support a finding of exceptional circumstances. First,
13
plaintiff has not addressed the likelihood of success on the merits. Nor is a likelihood of
14
success evident from the face of the Complaint. [Doc. No. 1].
15
Second, in support of his Motion, plaintiff contends that he has limited access to the
16
prison law library. [Doc. No. 12, at p. 2]. While plaitniff asserts that the constraint on his
17
access to research material limits his ability to adequately present the issues raised in his
18
Complaint, the hardships he presents are no different than those encountered by all
19
incarcerated litigants, and importantly do not qualify as exceptional circumstances.
20
Third, plaintiff asserts that his case is complex and that "a trial in this case would
21
most likely involve conflicting testimony. . ." [Id.]. The allegations contained in the
22
Complaint are not complex. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his Due Process right
23
against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eigth and Fourteenth Amendment [Doc.
24
No. 1, at p. 5]. The hardships associated with litigating plaintiff's case are shared by all
25
incarcerated litigants lacking legal expertise. Regardless, there is nothing from which this
26
Court could conclude plaintiff lacks the ability to articulate and litigate his claims. He has
27
filed several documents with the Court that are organized, presenting his arguments with
28
reasonable efficiency and clarity. [See, e.g., Doc. No. 1, Complaint].
2
3: 17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
1
Finally, litigants proceeding pro se are generally afforded some leniency to
2
compensate for their lack of legal training. Indeed, "[i]n civil rights cases where the
3
plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford
4
plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003)
5
(internal citation omitted). This also applies to motions. Bernhardt v Los Angeles County,
6
339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).
7
8
9
10
Consequently, Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 12] is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November ~2017
11
12
Hon. Kar n S. Crawford
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-01158-JLS-KSC
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?