Acosta v. Suryadevara
Filing
47
ORDER Granting Motion for Clarification 44 and Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel 45 , signed by District Judge G. Murray Snow on 5/24/2010. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
JDDL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Greg Acosta, Plaintiff, vs. S. Suryadevara, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. CV 1-08-1238-GMS ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (Dkt. # 44) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 45). Plaintiff requests clarification of the unsigned order he received from Defendant along with the Motion for Summary Judgment and status of his case. The order is a proposed form order submitted to the Court by Defendant that Defendant proposes that the Court sign if it grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Summary Judgment is pending and the Court will rule on the Motion in due course once it is fully briefed. Plaintiff requests the Court to appoint him counsel. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, does have the discretion to appoint counsel in "exceptional circumstances." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both `the likelihood of success
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JDDL
on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'" Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331(quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). "Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel" under section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While Plaintiff has pointed to financial difficulties that he is experiencing, such difficulties do not make his case exceptional. Accordingly, at the present time, this case does not present "exceptional circumstances" requiring the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Motion for Clarification (Dkt. # 44). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 45). DATED this 24th day of May, 2010.
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
