UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2011
W J PRICE, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. No. 6]
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [Doc. No. 6.] In support of his request, Plaintiff contends that the trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel will better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine witnesses. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.
"[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings." Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to "request" that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the 'likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.' Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision." Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quotingWilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
The Court finds that there is neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor an inability on the of Plaintiff to articulate his claims. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere v. , 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.