Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01019/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01019-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE MOSBY,

CDCR #T-53894,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAPTAIN D. FLYNN, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Maurice Mosby (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and is currently incarcerated at 

the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton. He filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequate medical care, alleging violations 

of the Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment.

On December 26, 2016, he filed a document entitled “Notice of 

Declaration/Motion Requesting Dismissal of this Above Entitled Civil Claim, to be 

Without Prejudice.” (ECF No. 24). Therein, he stated that he “moves this above court to 

dismiss this case without prejudice and to further defer such ruling to dismiss this claim 

until adjudication of the herein enclosed ‘Request for Appointment of counsel’ is 

determined to be validated.” (Id.) He attached a form entitled “Inmate Request for 

Assistance from the Court,” which applies to inmates claiming a disability. The form 

Case 3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG Document 28 Filed 03/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG

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

stated that Plaintiff sought to “appoint Counsel to show Deprivation of medical access to 

treatment/orthopedic appliance in violation of th[e] Constitution, deliberate indifference.” 

(Id.)

He filed the “Inmate Request for Assistance from the Court” form again on 

January 30, 2017. (ECF No. 26). The form is almost identical to the first filing, except 

makes clear that Plaintiff’s disability is that he is confined to a wheelchair. He again 

seeks appointment of counsel.

The Court construes Plaintiff’s filings to request appointment of counsel to 

maintain the action, but if the request is denied, Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss the 

case without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff is 

entitled to counsel. It concludes that he is not.

Courts have discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (1996), to appoint 

counsel for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. “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.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 

1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted). “Neither of these factors is dispositive 

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (internal citations 

omitted). 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice because nothing suggests he 

is incapable of articulating the factual basis for his inadequate medical care claims, which 

appear “relatively straightforward.” Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th 

Cir. 2015). Plaintiff’s Complaint survived pre-answer screening under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). However, at this initial stage of the pleadings, Plaintiff has 

not yet shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. Plaintiff’s disability does not 

compel a different result. Plaintiff’s confinement to a wheelchair has not affected his 

ability to articulate his arguments and prosecute the case. Therefore, the Court finds no 

“exceptional circumstances” required to justify the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Case 3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG Document 28 Filed 03/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG

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

See, e.g., Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of 

counsel where prisoner was able to articulate his inadequate medical care claims in light 

of the complexity of the issues involved, but found unlikely to succeed on the merits).

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s 

request to dismiss this lawsuit if the Court does not appoint counsel, the Court 

DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01019-BEN-WVG Document 28 Filed 03/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3