Calderon v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAVIER CALDERON, Case No. 19-cv-07949-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 24 10 C. KOENIG, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a pro se action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. 15 Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 24. 16 Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is needed because he is unable to afford 17 counsel; he has limited access to the law library and the other materials necessary for proper legal 18 research; he is a laymen at the law with little experience with legal research, reasoning, and 19 writing; plaintiff has no knowledge regarding the relevant procedural and court rules; plaintiff 20 does not know how to proceed next in this litigation; plaintiff has limited formal education and 21 does not understand or comprehend complex legal reasoning or language; plaintiff has relied on 22 other inmates to prepare his prior pleadings but assistance from other prisoners is difficult to 23 obtain given the current conditions of confinement; the issues involved are complex and require 24 serious and complex discovery proceedings; and plaintiff is unable to conduct discovery. Plaintiff 25 further argues that fundamental fairness requires appointment of counsel, and that appointment of 26 counsel would allow the Court to avoid entanglements and unnecessary delay. 27 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 1 counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Id. (citing Agyeman □□□ 2 Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. 3 || Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005)). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an 4 || evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits and of the plaintiff's ability to 5 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman, 6 390 F.3d at 1103. Both factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request 7 for counsel under § 1915. See id. 8 At this early stage in the litigation, the likelihood of Plaintiff's success on the merits is 9 || unclear, Plaintiff has thus far sufficiently articulated his claims pro se, and the issues presented are 10 || not unduly complex. Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED for lack 11 of exceptional circumstances without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel 12 should circumstances so require. Dkt. No. 24. 13 This order terminates Dkt. No. 24. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: 10/8/2020 16 /Maspurred 3 Sd, ah. 5 HAYWOOD S, GILLIAM, JR. nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28