Champion v. Smith, et al.
Filing
32
ORDER signed by District Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 6/3/2011. Motion to Appoint Counsel 25 is DENIED. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
Patrick Champion,
Plaintiff,
10
11
vs.
12
Dennis Smith, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-08-01503-ROS
ORDER
15
16
17
Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 25). Plaintiff states he is not as
18
versed in the law as defendants, will be unable to properly secure depositions from witnesses
19
due to incarceration of himself and witnesses, and there is a “very real” possibility this “will
20
go to trial.”
21
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v.
22
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings in
23
forma pauperis, the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
24
one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is
25
required only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
26
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances
27
requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
28
Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved.
1
Id. “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching
2
a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
3
4
Having considered both elements, the Court finds there are not exceptional
circumstances requiring the Court to appoint counsel in this case.
5
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 25) is DENIED.
6
DATED this 3rd day of June, 2011.
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?
