Taylor v. Paramo et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite "exceptional circumstances" at this time, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 9/20/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 18CV942-MMA(BLM)

ROBERT TAYLOR,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

DANIEL PARAMO, R. DIN, BRACAMONTE, A.
AGUIRRE, M. RICO, DANAL, AVILES, F.
LOPEZ, J. CURIEL, M. SIGALA, AND R.
CRAIG,

15
16
17

[ECF No. 21]

Defendants.

18
19

On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel that was

20

accepted by the Court on discrepancy on September 20, 2018. ECF Nos. 20 and 21. Plaintiff

21

requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent his interests in the instant matter. Id. at

22

2-3. In support, Plaintiff states that (1) he has a meritorious claim, (2) his ability to collect

23

evidence and conduct discovery is limited due to his incarceration, (3) he may suffer retaliation

24

at the hands of prison officials for conducting discovery and investigating his case, (4) credibility

25

issues will be an important factor in this case, (5) he is not a “jailhouse lawyer” and has a limited

26

education, (6) complex legal and factual issues will arise in this matter, and (7) this case may

27

be tried before a jury. Id. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

28

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an
1

18CV942-MMA(BLM)

1

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Olson v. Smith, 609

2

F. App'x 370, 372 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[a]s a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to

3

counsel”) (citing Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (“[t]he pre-eminent

4

generalization that emerges from this Court's precedents on an indigent's right to appointed

5

counsel is that such a right has been recognized to exist only where the litigant may lose his

6

physical liberty if he loses the litigation”). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are

7

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.”

8

Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional

9

circumstances demands at least “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the

10

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity

11

of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

12

1986)).

13

Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted pleadings and motions without the assistance

14

of counsel. See Docket. In addition to the instant motion, he has submitted a complaint (ECF

15

No. 1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), a prisoner trust fund account

16

statement (ECF No. 3), and a motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 7). From the Court’s

17

review of these documents, it is clear that Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his case. In

18

addition, Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that his case

19

should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance[].” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; see also

20

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

21

circumstances” at this time, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for

22

appointment of counsel.

23
24

Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/20/2018

25
26
27
28
2

18CV942-MMA(BLM)