From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Nooth

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 13, 2009
Civil No. 08-1138-PK (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-1138-PK.

April 13, 2009


ORDER


Before this court are plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (#3 #13) and motion for summary judgment/judgment on the pleadings (#17). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motions are DENIED.

Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this court has discretion to request volunteer counsel for indigent plaintiffs in exceptional circumstances. Id.; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). While this court may request volunteer counsel in exceptional cases, it has no power to make a mandatory appointment. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-08 (1989).

In order to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, this court evaluates the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335-36; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331;Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotingWeygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). However, "[n]either of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel under [former] section 1915(d)." Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331;Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate his claims. The facts and legal issues involved are not of substantial complexity. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, there are no exceptional circumstances that require the appointment of counsel under § 1915(e).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (#3 #13) are DENIED. In addition, because defendants have not yet been served, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment/judgment on the pleadings (#17) is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Young v. Nooth

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 13, 2009
Civil No. 08-1138-PK (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2009)
Case details for

Young v. Nooth

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW ROBERT YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. MARK NOOTH, SRCI Superintendent, GUY…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 13, 2009

Citations

Civil No. 08-1138-PK (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2009)

Citing Cases

HART v. PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES INCORPORATED

See Martinez v. Whitman, 2010 WL 475347, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2010) (citing Portsmouth Square, Inc., v.…

Bazley v. Gates

See Martinez v. Whitman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9766, 2010 WL 475347, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2010) (citing…