Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00783/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00783-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11cv783

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES GRADY, CDCR #T-71212,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONQUILLO, Correctional Officer,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-CV-783-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 10] 

On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff Charles Grady filed a motion for appointment of

counsel. Doc. No. 10. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v.

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District

courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to appoint counsel

for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before reaching a decision.’” Id. (citations omitted).

//

Case 3:11-cv-00783-LAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 10/07/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 11cv783

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal

bases of his claim with sufficient clarity. The facts alleged in the Complaint are not

complex. Based on the information currently before the Court, it is clear that Plaintiff

has the competence necessary to pursue his case. Without more, this Court cannot

conclude that there are “exceptional circumstances” which would warrant the

appointment of counsel in Plaintiff’s case. Nor has Plaintiff submitted anything which

would suggest he is likely to succeed on the merits or that it would be in the interests of

justice for counsel to be appointed in his case.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 7, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00783-LAB-JMA Document 11 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 2