“There is no constitutional right to appointed 18 counsel in a § 1983 action.”
How later courts described this case
- “There is no constitutional right to appointed 18 counsel in a § 1983 action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ADAM R. LOPEZ, No. 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-GSA (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
14 DR. BROWN, et al., PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
15 Defendants. DISMISSING THIS CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
16 CLAIM
17 (Doc. Nos. 21, 22)
18
19
20 Plaintiff Adam R. Lopez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
21 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
22 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
23 On August 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
24 recommending that plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel be denied and this case be
25 dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under §1983.
26 (Doc. No. 22.) On August 20, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and
27 recommendations. (Doc. No. 23.)
28 /////
1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
4 Plaintiff’s objections are largely a recitation of the facts alleged in his second amended
5 complaint. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff does add an assertion that the reason defendants Brown and
6 Jackson denied him medical care was the cost involved in providing such care. (Id. at 2.)
7 However, even were this additional conclusory allegation advanced in a third amended complaint,
8 it would not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts showing that
9 defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Additionally, plaintiff
10 now takes issue with the medical staff as a whole at the institution of his confinement for
11 allegedly being inadequate over the three-year period at issue in this action. (Id. at 3.) This
12 objection is without merit, however, since plaintiff has not brought, nor could he bring, a claim
13 against the medical staff as a whole at his institution of confinement.
14 Lastly, plaintiff objects on the grounds that despite his best efforts, he has unable to
15 litigate the complex issues he seeks to raise without the appointment of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff
16 does not have a constitutional right to appointment of counsel in this § 1983 action. See Rand v.
17 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (“There is no constitutional right to appointed
18 counsel in a § 1983 action.”), withdrawn on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th
19 Cir. 1998). “However, in ‘exceptional circumstances,’ a district court may appoint counsel for
20 indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” Id. The court determines whether such
21 exceptional circumstances exist by evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the
22 petitioner’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
23 Id. As the assigned magistrate judge noted in the pending findings and recommendations, the
24 claims presented by plaintiff in this action are not particularly complex, “and a review of the
25 record shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his
26 claims.” (Doc. No. 22 at 5.) The undersigned agrees. Moreover, because the court dismisses
27 plaintiff’s claims by way of this order, consideration of his likelihood of success on the merits of
28 his claims also weighs against the appointment of counsel.
1 Accordingly:
2 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on
3 August 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in full;
4 2. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied;
5 3. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
6 upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and
7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a "
9 Li. wh F
Dated: _ January 13, 2020 Sea 1" S098
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28