Court Opinion

ID: 9363902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 21:00:42.945869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.790765
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERIBERTO TORIBIO-RUIZ,                         No.    22-15013

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                3:17-cv-00674-MMD-CLB
 v.

ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al.,                    MEMORANDUM*

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                  Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 11, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Heriberto Toribio-Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his

motions for the appointment of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to appoint counsel for abuse

of discretion. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      There were no “exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of

counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). While Toribio-

Ruiz had minimal formal education and no legal training, his claim at trial primarily

revolved around uncomplicated questions of fact concerning the distribution of his

medications. As Toribio-Ruiz did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits

and as his claims were not overly complex, the district court did not abuse its

discretion. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2