Jackson v. Covello et.al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO JACKSON, Case No.: 3:19-cv-02444-JAH-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 P. COVELLO, et al.

15 Defendants.

16 ECF No. 60-1 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ricardo Jackson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 19 requesting the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action filed 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Mot., ECF No. 60-1). Plaintiff makes various arguments 21 in support of his request. First, Plaintiff states he should be appointed counsel because the 22 complexity of the issues would require significant research and investigation, and he has 23 “limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law in comparison to the 24 ‘Attorney General’s Office’ … ” (Id. at 1). Second, Plaintiff asserts that the cases and 25 various rules and authorities cited in Defendants’ motion to dismiss “is a whole lot to 26 research.” (Id. at 2). Third, Plaintiff notes the challenges associated with conducting a 27 trial, presenting evidence, and cross-examining witnesses as a self-represented individual. 28 (Id.) Fourth, Plaintiff describes his various medical disabilities and pains “that enables 1 Plaintiff to sit for any long period of time.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff states that, despite his 2 efforts, he has been unable to obtain pro bono counsel. (Id.) 3 The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless 4 an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. 5 of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district 6 courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional 7 circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of 8 exceptional circumstances requires “an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the 9 merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 10 of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed 11 together before reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 12 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 13 Here, although it appears Plaintiff is indigent, the Court finds the appointment of 14 counsel inappropriate at this juncture. The Court is unable to determine Plaintiff’s 15 likelihood of success on the merits, as Defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending. Although 16 Plaintiff alleges to suffer from physical disabilities, the various iterations of Plaintiff’s 17 complaint, and its ability to survive sua sponte screening, demonstrate his ability to 18 sufficiently grasp the legal issues involved and to adequately articulate his claims. 19 Furthermore, the Court finds that, neither the limitations of imprisonment, nor Plaintiff’s 20 lack of legal knowledge, qualify as an exceptional circumstance warranting the 21 appointment of counsel. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for 2 appointment of counsel because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere v. 3 || Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 |} DATED: June 22, 2023

7 JQ@HN A. HOUSTON JNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28