Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01475/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01475-2/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

1 05cv1475

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY GRAY, Civil

No.

05-CV-1475 J (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

[Doc. # 108]

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Ricky Gray (“Plaintiff” or “Gray”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this

action for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

motion for appointment of counsel. [Doc. # 108]. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

Plaintiff has not made the showing required for appointment of counsel in civil cases. “[A]n

indigent’s right to appointed counsel is that such a right has been recognized to exist only where the

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation.” Lassiter v. Department of Social Services

of Durham County, N. C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Appointment of counsel in proceedings in forma

pauperis is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which “confers on a district court the discretion to

designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted). “The court may appoint counsel under section 1915(d) only

under ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal

Case 3:05-cv-01475-MMA-CAB Document 111 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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 05cv1475

citation omitted). “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. (internal citation omitted).

Plaintiff has shown no lack of ability to articulate his claims pro se. Gray has filed several

amended pleadings. The current operative pleading is the Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has

also filed numerous motions. His filings are fairly organized and present the issues and arguments with

adequate clarity and efficiency. 

Plaintiff argues that he does not have the opportunity to interview witnesses due to his placement

in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”). Plaintiff’s housing in the SHU in and of itself is not an

extraordinary circumstance. The Court notes that because of the numerous amended pleadings, there has

been no Answer and no scheduling order issued in this case, and discovery has not officially started. In

the future, however, if Plaintiff needs more time to conduct the necessary discovery, he may file an

appropriate request for an extension. 

In addition, the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits is not clear at this time. 

Defendants have a pending motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. Therefore the nature or

number of at least some of the claims may change. 

Gray also asserts that the issues in the case are complex and involve confidential documents. 

Plaintiff has not shown, however, that he cannot obtain confidential documents from Defendants, when

appropriate. Plaintiff has previously filed discovery motions related to confidential documents. He

sought and obtained an order sealing certain confidential documents. [Doc. # 67]. Plaintiff later

requested that the documents be unsealed. [Doc. # 73]. Gray’s discovery motions demonstrate his

awareness of the legal procedures applicable to this type of evidence. Further, the factual and legal

issues in the case, although numerous, do not appear to be complex. Plaintiff alleges violations of the

First and Fourteenth Amendments as to different Defendants. 

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01475-MMA-CAB Document 111 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 05cv1475

Accordingly, this Court finds no extraordinary circumstances and denies Plaintiff’s motion

without prejudice. 

IT SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 7, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01475-MMA-CAB Document 111 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 3