Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01019/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01019-7/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

07cv1019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WAYNE JONES, 

CDCR #D-55894,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART J. RYAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-1019-JMA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Doc. 178]

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff Rodney Wayne Jones filed a motion for appointment of

counsel. [Doc. 178.] The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for counsel on

December 15, 2009 and February 23, 2010. [Docs. 120, 128.] Plaintiff presently claims

that he requires counsel because his case has survived all previous motions filed by

Defendants to dismiss the case, and due to the legal and factual complexity of

preparing his case for trial. Pl.’s Motion at 2-3.

“[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). “Title 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits the district court, in its discretion, to ‘request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel.’” Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514

F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Such discretion may be

exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

Case 3:07-cv-01019-JMA-NLS Document 179 Filed 05/06/11 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 07cv1019

1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989). “To

show exceptional circumstances, the litigant must demonstrate the likelihood of success

and the complexity of legal issues involved.” Id. (citation omitted). Neither of these

factors is dispositive, and both must be considered. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

Having considered both factors, the Court does not find that exceptional

circumstances are present that would warrant the appointment of counsel in this case. 

As the Court previously found, Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, including the

legal issues involved, and has been able to adequately articulate the factual basis of his

claims. See Dec. 15, 2009 Order [Doc. 120]. Further, the Court’s order granting in part

and denying in part Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment does not equate

to a showing by Plaintiff that he has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his

remaining claims. The Court therefore DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel. 

While the presence of exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

counsel does not exist in this case, the Court has attempted to locate volunteer counsel

to represent Plaintiff for purposes of settlement and/or trial through referrals to the San

Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program and to the Lawyer Representatives of the Southern

District of California. Although the Court has been unable to find volunteer counsel for

Plaintiff to date, it continues its efforts to do so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01019-JMA-NLS Document 179 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 2