Limpin et al v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER Denying 18 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/26/2018. The Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor any exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time and denies Plaintiff's motion. This denial is without prejudice should Plaintiff later be able to make the requisite showing of exceptional circumstances. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN, et al.,

Case No.: 17-CV-1729-JLS (WVG)

Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

13

(ECF No. 18)

14
15
16

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Melchor Karl T. Limpin’s Motion Requesting
Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), (“MTN,” ECF No. 18).

17

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless

18

an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t.

19

of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district

20

courts have the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons.

21

however, may be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer,

22

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

23

evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

24

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither

25

of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.”

26

Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

This discretion,

27

In support of his request for counsel, Plaintiff reiterates the allegations of his

28

Complaint. (See generally MTN.) Plaintiff asserts he will likely prevail on the merits of
1
17-CV-1729-JLS (WVG)

1

his claims for various reasons. (Id. at 4.) He asserts he requires counsel “for the complexity

2

of legal issues involved in this suit such as pursuing preliminary and declaratory relief

3

injunction[s].” (Id. at 6.) He also alleges this case requires development of further facts

4

and he cannot do this easily given his pro se and indigent status. (Id. at 8.)

5

The Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied the standards for appointment of counsel

6

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). First, Plaintiff’s success on the merits is still unclear at the

7

early stage of litigation. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint; this

8

motion has not yet been opposed nor ruled upon, thus, the Court cannot at this time

9

determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Second, in the present Motion,

10

Plaintiff demonstrates his ability to articulate his claims. Plaintiff provides an in-depth

11

analysis of legal authority that he believes support his allegations. Plaintiff has also

12

successfully filed a Complaint (along with various accompanying motions), has been

13

granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, and has even filed a petition for

14

permission to appeal this Court’s order denying class action certification. (See ECF Nos.

15

9, 13.)

16

The Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor any exceptional circumstances

17

warrant appointment of counsel at this time and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. This denial is

18

WITHOUT PREJUDICE should Plaintiff later be able to make the requisite showing of

19

exceptional circumstances.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-CV-1729-JLS (WVG)