Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02715/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02715-1/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 

16-CV-2715-JLS(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

CHARLES E. GRIFFIN, II, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

R. ZURBANO et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-CV-2715-JLS(WVG) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 25.] 

Plaintiff Charles Griffin, proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 

section 1983 against officials of the California Department of Corrections and 

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

Fourteenth Amendments. He now moves for appointment of counsel, which the Court 

DENIES without prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges a series of events transpired in 2015 when he was an inmate at the 

R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego County. He alleges that a prison doctor 

discontinued his morphine prescription without examining him and claims that two prison 

nurses then lodged falsified complaints that he had threatened them. He claims a lieutenant 

then ordered him housed in administrative segregation without any investigation. As a 

Case 3:16-cv-02715-JLS-WVG Document 27 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16-CV-2715-JLS(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

result, he contends he suffered adverse consequences at his parole hearing. He claims 

violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

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 

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”). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02715-JLS-WVG Document 27 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16-CV-2715-JLS(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

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff contends he needs counsel appointed here because he does not have any 

legal education, has a 10th-grade education, is unable to afford counsel, and is unable to 

obtain evidence as well as an attorney. Plaintiff does not qualify for appointment of counsel 

under the rigorous standard explained above. 

First, Plaintiff’s lack of education in the law and 10th-grade education level have not 

prevented him from filing very cogent and well-organized documents. For example, the 

Complaint is one of the better prisoner operative pleadings this Court has seen. It is typewritten, well-organized, and includes sections that are typically included in complaints 

filed by attorneys. It sets forth the factual allegations of this case quite well. 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. Moreover, the Court held a Mandatory Settlement Conference on 

August 17, 2017, during which Plaintiff articulated his position with precision and clarity. 

He was able to recall events and discuss them intelligently and clearly. 

The law in this areas is quite settled. Plaintiff’s factual allegations are also noncomplex 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. He has done quite well so far on his own 

and will continue to do so without an attorney. 

Second, 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. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02715-JLS-WVG Document 27 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16-CV-2715-JLS(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

Finally, although an attorney would be able to better conduct discovery, the 

limitations placed on Plaintiff based on his incarceration are no greater than any other 

prisoner plaintiff. Plaintiff may propound discovery, and he may petition the Court for 

redress if a dispute arises. 

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

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 17, 2017 

Case 3:16-cv-02715-JLS-WVG Document 27 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4