Opinion
22-cv-02454 BLF (PR)
08-14-2023
ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCKET NO. 27)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against an officer at the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) where he was formerly incarcerated, and against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), the State of California, and the Correctional Peace Officers Association union (“CPOA”). The Court ordered the amended complaint served on April 14, 2023. Dkt. No. 21. Defendants were granted an extension of time to file a dispositive motion until no later than October 12, 2023. Dkt. No. 26.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel based on indigency, lack of legal knowledge, and for assistance with an upcoming deposition. Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiff also asserts that he would be better prepared to prosecute this matter with the aid of an attorney. Id. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff's grounds are not exceptional among prisonerplaintiffs. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 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).
This order terminates Docket No. 27.
IT IS SO ORDERED.