Jones v. Ryan et al
Filing
179
ORDER denying 178 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 5/6/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODNEY WAYNE JONES,
CDCR #D-55894,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
STUART J. RYAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-CV-1019-JMA
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[Doc. 178]
On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff Rodney Wayne Jones filed a motion for appointment of
18
counsel. [Doc. 178.] The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for counsel on
19
December 15, 2009 and February 23, 2010. [Docs. 120, 128.] Plaintiff presently claims
20
that he requires counsel because his case has survived all previous motions filed by
21
Defendants to dismiss the case, and due to the legal and factual complexity of
22
preparing his case for trial. Pl.’s Motion at 2-3.
23
“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v.
24
Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). “Title 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits the district court, in its discretion, to ‘request an attorney to
26
represent any person unable to afford counsel.’” Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514
27
F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Such discretion may be
28
exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,
07cv1019
1
1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989). “To
2
show exceptional circumstances, the litigant must demonstrate the likelihood of success
3
and the complexity of legal issues involved.” Id. (citation omitted). Neither of these
4
factors is dispositive, and both must be considered. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.
5
Having considered both factors, the Court does not find that exceptional
6
circumstances are present that would warrant the appointment of counsel in this case.
7
As the Court previously found, Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, including the
8
legal issues involved, and has been able to adequately articulate the factual basis of his
9
claims. See Dec. 15, 2009 Order [Doc. 120]. Further, the Court’s order granting in part
10
and denying in part Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment does not equate
11
to a showing by Plaintiff that he has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his
12
remaining claims. The Court therefore DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for
13
appointment of counsel.
14
While the presence of exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of
15
counsel does not exist in this case, the Court has attempted to locate volunteer counsel
16
to represent Plaintiff for purposes of settlement and/or trial through referrals to the San
17
Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program and to the Lawyer Representatives of the Southern
18
District of California. Although the Court has been unable to find volunteer counsel for
19
Plaintiff to date, it continues its efforts to do so.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 6, 2011
22
Jan M. Adler
U.S. Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
07cv1019
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?