Vasquez v. Paramo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 HENRY VASQUEZ, Case No.: 18-cv-2097-GPC-MDD 15 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 16 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 17 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., 18 Defendants. [ECF No. 47] 19 20 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 21 Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is currently incarcerated at in 22 Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s first request for 23 appointed counsel was denied without prejudice on March 14, 2019. (ECF 24 No. 21). On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second request for appointed 25 counsel which the Court denied on August 16, 2019. (ECF Nos. 42, 45). On 26 August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document providing additional arguments to 1 construes this document as a third request for appointed counsel. 2 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 3 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, federal courts do not have 4 the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United 5 States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 6 District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants 8 upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 9 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires 10 an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 11 the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 12 legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be 13 viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. 14 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 15 As with Plaintiff’s previous motion, Plaintiff supports this request by 16 arguing that his claims against one named defendant survived summary 17 judgment, there is video evidence to support his claims, and he does not 18 possess the required legal skills to properly examine witnesses or seek expert 19 witnesses. (ECF No. 47). However, as this Court noted in denying Plaintiff’s 20 previous requests for counsel, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp 21 of his case, the relevant evidence, the legal issues involved, and is able to 22 adequately articulate the basis of his claims as demonstrated by Plaintiff’s 23 Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 21, 45). Plaintiff’s pro se pleading survived initial 24 screening and his claims against one Defendant survived an early summary 25 judgment motion. However, the Court notes again that Plaintiff’s claims are 26 not particularly complex, and although sufficient to survive screening, 1 Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to 9 ||show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel 3 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice 4 || Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: August 22, 2019 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27