Anaya v. Vasquez

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 DANIEL RIVERA ANAYA, Case No.: 24cv0863-CAB (JLB) BOOKING #44512359, — 12 — ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 APPOINT COUNSEL vs. — 14 — — 15 — WARDEN V. VASQUEZ, ASSISTANT 16 WARDEN T. HARTLEY and HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR — 17 — LOVELESS, 18 Defendants. — 19 — — 20 — 21 Plaintiff Daniel Rivera Anaya, detained at the GEO Western Region Detention 22 Facility in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. (ECF No. 23 1.) On May 17, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 24 dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). 25 (ECF No. 4.) The dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff to amend on or before July 26 1, 2024. (Id. at 7.) On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to appoint counsel 27 in which he states that his detention and lack of legal resources makes obtaining evidence 28 in support of his claims difficult without appointed counsel. (ECF No. 5.) 1 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and appointment of counsel 2 |junder 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted 3 || only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101 , 4 || 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that 5 || only “exceptional circumstances” support such a discretionary appointment). Exceptional 6 || circumstances exist where there is cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on 7 merits and an inability of the pro se litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal 8 ||complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 Because it appears Plaintiff is capable of legibly articulating the facts and 10 |}circumstances relevant to his claims, which are not exceptionally legally complex, and 11 || because as noted in the Court’s Order of Dismissal, dated May 17, 2024, Plaintiff has yet 12 show he is likely to succeed on the merits of the claims, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’ s 13 |}motion for appointment of counsel at this time without prejudice to its renewal at a later 14 || stage of these proceedings. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: May 23, 2024 € — 17 — Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — 2 □□