Grady v. Ronquillo

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 10/7/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES GRADY, CDCR #T-71212,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

RONQUILLO, Correctional Officer,
Defendant.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-783-LAB (JMA)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[Doc. No. 10]

On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff Charles Grady filed a motion for appointment of

17
18

counsel. Doc. No. 10. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

19

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v.

20

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District

21

courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to appoint counsel

22

for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v.

23

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

24

requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

25

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

26

involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

27

before reaching a decision.’” Id. (citations omitted).

28

//

11cv783

1
2

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal

3

bases of his claim with sufficient clarity. The facts alleged in the Complaint are not

4

complex. Based on the information currently before the Court, it is clear that Plaintiff

5

has the competence necessary to pursue his case. Without more, this Court cannot

6

conclude that there are “exceptional circumstances” which would warrant the

7

appointment of counsel in Plaintiff’s case. Nor has Plaintiff submitted anything which

8

would suggest he is likely to succeed on the merits or that it would be in the interests of

9

justice for counsel to be appointed in his case.

10
11
12
13

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 7, 2011

14
Jan M. Adler
U.S. Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

11cv783