Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00176/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00176-3/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 

15-CV-176-GPC(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

GREGORY SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

R. COBB et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15-CV-176-GPC(WVG) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 55] 

Plaintiff Gregory Smith, proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 

Section 1983 against officials of the California Department of Correction and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) alleging violations of his rights under the First and Eighth 

Amendments. Plaintiff now moves for appointment of counsel, which the Court DENIES 

without prejudice at this time. However, the Court may reconsider this ruling in the 

future—either sua sponte or upon Plaintiff’s re-application—after a ruling on any 

dispositive motions and it appears this case will proceed to trial. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California’s Folsom prison, alleges that on September 29, 

2010, he reported to officials that his cellmate was displaying “bizarre behavior.” This 

included walking about the cell naked and talking about wanting to watch Plaintiff use the 

toilet, sex with men, and rape. Officials informed Plaintiff that they would “take care of 

the problem.” The following day Plaintiff was assaulted by his cellmate. He suffered 

Case 3:15-cv-00176-GPC-WVG Document 56 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

15-CV-176-GPC(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

second degree burns on his right arm, neck and back, a broken left shoulder, left eye 

damage, two stab wounds, and a fractured disc. Plaintiff was hospitalized for ten days at 

U.C. San Diego Medical Center. He claims to suffer continuing mental and physical 

trauma as a result of the assault. 

In addition to the above alleged violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, Plaintiff 

alleges that other defendants violated his First Amendment right to access to the courts by 

frustrating his attempts to complete the prison’s grievance process. He filed suit on March 

13, 2015. Since then, the Court denied a motion to dismiss and a summary judgment 

motion filed by Defendants, and Plaintiff has filed a pending motion to strike Defendants’ 

Answer. The Court also issued a scheduling order regulating discovery. 

II. APPLICABLE LAW 

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other 

grounds). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments 

of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. 

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 

1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 

exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking 

assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Court agrees that any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance 

of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. However, so long 

as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

Case 3:15-cv-00176-GPC-WVG Document 56 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

15-CV-176-GPC(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

relative complexity of the matter,” the exceptional circumstances which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact 

that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realms of discovery and 

the securing of expert testimony”). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff contends he needs counsel appointed here because he is unable to afford 

counsel, the issues in this case are complex, and he needs the assistance of expert witnesses. 

The Court is not persuaded at this time. First, Plaintiff’s indigence is not a factor the Court 

considers persuasive given that all or nearly all prisoners are indigent, and parties in civil 

cases are not automatically entitled to appointed counsel despite their indigence. Second, 

this case is not complex, as it does not present novel questions or theories of law, and this 

area of law itself is not complex. The law in this areas is quite settled. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 

factual allegations are also non-complex and are in line with similar claims routinely 

litigated before this Court by pro se prisoners. Thus, Plaintiff will not need the assistance 

of an attorney to research and argue some arcane or unclear legal theory at this time. 

Finally, although Plaintiff generally states he lacks access to expert witnesses, he does not 

identify what type of expert he needs or explain why such testimony is needed in this case. 

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice at this 

time. However, given the potentially compelling nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court 

will reconsider appointment of counsel in the future if it appears this case will proceed to 

trial. The Court will do so sua sponte or upon Plaintiff’s re-application for appointment of 

counsel. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 17, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00176-GPC-WVG Document 56 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3