Barksdale v. Smith ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH D. BARKSDALE, Case No. 23-cv-05221 BLF 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 WARDEN OAK SMITH, et al., 15 Defendants (Docket No. 15) 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), where he is 20 currently confined. Dkt. No. 6. On April 12, 2024, the Court found the complaint stated 21 cognizable claims of excessive force and failure to protect claim and ordered the matter 22 served on one named Defendant. Dkt. No. 14. 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel based on indigency, 24 limitations due to his incarceration, possible retaliation from prison officials, his lack of 25 legal experience and limited education, possibility of “complex legal and factual issues” 26 arising, need for expert witnesses, and potential jury trial. Dkt. No. 15. There is no 27 constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his 1 || physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 2 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional 3 || right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 4 |} 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an 5 || indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is 6 || granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th 7 || Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff's grounds are not exceptional among prisoner-plaintiffs and 8 || are speculative. It is also premature to assume that this matter will go to trial. g || Accordingly, the motion is DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyveman 10 || v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 11 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). E 13 This order terminates Docket No. 15. S 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: _ May 23,2024 foinbhacicen BETH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. |] papRo-SPBLPCR.2300822 1Barkedele-aty 26 27