Gaspard v. Castillo, et al.
Filing
50
ORDER denying 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge David G. Campbell on 10/31/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
<![CDATA[
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
Arthur Gaspard,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
D. Castillo, et al.,
12
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:08-cv-1484-DGC
ORDER
13
14
Plaintiff has filed another motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. 48. Plaintiff has
15
filed two previous motions for appointment of counsel (see Docs. 20, 28). As with the
16
previous motions for appointment of counsel, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s third motion for
17
appointment of counsel.
18
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd.
19
of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, has
20
discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1);
21
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional
22
circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the
23
ability of the petitioner to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the
24
legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,
25
954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
26
Having considered both factors, the Court does not find “exceptional circumstances”
27
requiring the appointment of counsel. While Plaintiff ultimately may prevail at trial on his
28
§ 1983 claim, he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success. Nor has he shown that any
1
difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the
2
issues involved.
3
4
5
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 48) is
denied.
DATED this 31st day of October, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?
