Underwood v. Love
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Larry Underwood, proceeding pro se in a civil rights action, moved for the appointment of counsel. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel denied“Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from the Ninth Circuit that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases and that appointment is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. The order recites that the plaintiff submitted a medical note regarding educational accommodations but failed to show an inability to articulate claims or unusual complexity. Based on the record recited in the order, the denial follows from the law. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases and applies it to the specific facts presented (the medical note). It cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority. The reasoning is direct and answers the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY UNDERWOOD, ) Case No.: 24-CV-2423-BEN-DDL ) 12 Plaintiff, ) DENIAL OF MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ) 14 JACK A. LOVE, ESQ., and LAW ) OFFICES OF JACK A. LOVE, 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 17 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to the 18 assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. This right ensures that a criminal 19 defendant who faces potential incarceration is entitled to be represented by an attorney, 20 and if the defendant is indigent, the court must appoint counsel at no cost to the 21 defendant. However, these constitutional guarantees do not extend to civil proceedings. 22 In the context of a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or other 23 similar statutes, the plaintiff is not entitled to court-appointed counsel as a matter of 24 constitutional right. Civil litigants, including those asserting claims of constitutional 25 violations, must generally proceed without appointed counsel unless the court, in its 26 discretion, determines that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 28 1 |}2009). Such circumstances may include the complexity of legal issues or the plaintiff's 2 ||demonstrated inability to articulate their claims. Jd. at 970 (cleaned up). 3 Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances 4 warranting the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff supports this request with a medical 5 note recommending educational accommodations (ECF No. 5); however, this 6 documentation, while acknowledged, does not establish that Plaintiff cannot articulate his 7 || claims or that the legal issues presented are unusually complex. Accordingly, the Court 8 finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. Plaintiff’s Motion for ? Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Nlypuire, | DATED: May 29, 2025 12 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.