Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00371-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cigna Healthcare
Defendant
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
Defendant
Grantrina A. Davis
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTRINA A. DAVIS, CASE NO. CV-F-05-0371 LJO

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS AND APPEAL OF

vs. ARBITRATION

(Doc. 37.)

CIGNA HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff Grantrina Davis (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se to pursue her sexual harassment claims.

This Court’s July 25, 2005 order compelled arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to defendant

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company’s arbitration policy and rules and stayed this action. On

August 25, 2005, plaintiff filed her document entitled “Motion for Sanctions and Appeal of Arbitration.”

This Court construes plaintiff’s vague document to request appointment of counsel or other relief which

this Court is not in a position to provide.

A plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to appointment of counsel in a civil action.

See Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477 (3rd Cir. 1981) (citing Peterson v. Nadler, 452 U.S. F.2d 754,

757 (8th Cir.1971)); see also Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). Only under exceptional circumstances may a district court appoint

counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an “evaluation of both the likelihood of success

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 38 Filed 08/30/05 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

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.” See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). To obtain counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the moving party must make a threshold showing

that he sought counsel, has been unable to obtain it, and the claim is not frivolous. See Hodge v. Police

Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2nd Cir. 1986). A court has authority to appoint counsel when it is necessary

to avoid fundamental unfairness. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981).

In the present case, this Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. This Court

has stayed this action and compelled arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff

is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle her

to relief, her case is not exceptional and is similar to hundreds of other actions filed by employees.

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an attempt and inability to obtain counsel. Failure to appoint counsel will

not result in “fundamental unfairness.” Plaintiff has failed to substantiate the criteria for appointment

of counsel or any other relief. 

This Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and appeal of arbitration. This Court

admonishes plaintiffthatshe must pursue her claims before the American Arbitration Association

pursuant to Connecticut General Life Insurance Company’s arbitration policy and the American

Arbitration Association’s rules and procedures. This Court further admonishes plaintiff that this

action is stayed in this Court to prevent this Court to provide the type of relief plaintiff seeks.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 38 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2