UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 13, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. #3. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); L.R. 7-15. Having considered the papers submitted in support of the motion, the Court denies the motion.
A district court will secure counsel for an indigent civil litigant only in "exceptional circumstances." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both 'the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.' Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision." Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances warrant the securing of counsel. The Court believes that Plaintiff has the ability to articulate his claims adequately on his own. Neither the facts nor the legal issues involved are unusually complex. Plaintiff cites his location in Austria as impeding his ability to conduct discovery as a reason to grant his motion. However, Plaintiff has recognized that he "is familiar enough with discovery procedure and can submit his written 'interrogatories' and 'production of documents' to the government." Mot. ¶ 8. His only concern is that he will not be able to depose government agents from outside the United States. Id. This is not sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.