Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 RUSSELL ELLIOT and NELLY Case No. 24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB ELLIOT, 16 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 17 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ v. MOTION FOR STAY (ECF No. 18 61); SPE TERRA NOVA APARTMENT 19 OWNERS LLC., et. al, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 20 MOTION FOR MORE Defendants. DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF 21 No. 80); AND 22 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 23 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 82) 24 25 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the captioned motions 26 submitted by Plaintiffs Russell Elliott and Nelly Elliott (“Plaintiffs”) against Defendants 27 Spe Terra Nova Apartment Owners LLC, Apartment Management Consultants LLC, and 28 Monica Flores (“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 61, 80, 82.) 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs, Russell Elliot and Nelly Elliott, are a married couple with minor children. 3 (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff Russell Elliott suffers from medical disabilities. (ECF No. 61 at 4 2:6-8.) On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging housing 5 discrimination based on familial status, sex, disability, and national origin and intimidation. 6 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants incorrectly assumed that their children left 7 toys on the sidewalk near their apartment complex, where Plaintiffs resided at the time. 8 (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs also allege that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs are now 9 homeless (ECF No. 61 at 2:14-15.) Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint 10 on February 21, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiffs filed subsequent motions, including: (1) a 11 motion for temporary stay of proceedings (ECF No. 61); (2) a motion for indefinite stay of 12 proceedings (ECF No. 80); and (3) a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 82). Though the 13 Court is sympathetic to pro se litigants’ challenges of navigating legal procedure without 14 the aid of legal counsel, the Court denies these motions for the reasons below. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Motions to Stay (ECF Nos. 61, 80) 17 Plaintiffs filed motions to stay proceedings (ECF Nos. 61, 80). In both of Plaintiffs’ 18 motions (id.), Plaintiffs move the Court to stay proceedings based on its inherent authority 19 to control its docket, as recognized in Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). In 20 deciding whether to stay a case pursuant to their inherent docket-management authority, 21 courts weigh three non-exclusive factors: “(1) the possible damage which may result from 22 the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 23 required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 24 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law.” Ernest Bock, LLC v. 25 Steelman, 76 F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023). 26 Plaintiffs argue their case should be stayed “indefinitely” because: (1) they have 27 “severe, documented disabilities exacerbated by litigation stress,” (2) “state sponsored 28 trauma . . . due to harassment and stalking by federal agents,” and (3) “systemic judicial 1 crisis” due to the “current national political climate.” (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiffs are afraid 2 that as U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent, they will not receive a fair adjudication of their 3 claims. First, there is no provision for a party to receive “indefinite stay.” This would 4 create lasting damages both to Parties and to the orderly administration of justice. Second, 5 the grounds articulated by Plaintiffs do not warrant such a stay. 6 Plaintiffs argue they are medically and financially impaired from continuing to 7 litigate their case. (Id.) Although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ struggles, it must 8 still follow the federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the Rules, it is a plaintiff's 9 responsibility to move the case toward disposition on the merits, In re Exxon Valdez, 102 10 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 1996), and a pro se litigant must follow the same rules of procedure 11 that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, 12 Plaintiffs have demonstrated capacity to continue litigating the case based on their 13 continued pattern of filing motions in this case. The fact that Plaintiffs were able to pursue 14 their claims in state and federal court shows that they do, in fact, have the capacity to pursue 15 their rights. Cf Johnson v. Yordy, No. 1:21-CV-00262-BLW, 2021 WL 5145306, at *2 (D. 16 Idaho Nov. 4, 2021), aff'd sub nom. Johnson v. Idaho, No. 21-35961, 2023 WL 4636468 17 (9th Cir. July 20, 2023) (“The fact that Plaintiff was able to pursue his claims in state court 18 shows that he did and does, in fact, have the mental capability and legal capacity to pursue 19 his rights.”) Plaintiffs chose to file their action in this Court. Therefore, if they face 20 hardship in litigating their action, it is of their own making. See Suber v. VVP Servs., LLC, 21 No. 2:23-CV-02932-SPG (AGMX), 2023 WL 8143876, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2023) 22 (denying plaintiff’s request for stay when plaintiff cites unexpected litigation costs as the 23 basis). 24 Additionally, Plaintiffs have not cited remaining Landis concerns regarding judicial 25 economy or procedural justice as reasons to stay the present action. Ernest Bock, LLC, 76 26 F.4th at 842. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions to stay (ECF Nos. 61, 80). 27 If Plaintiffs wish to stop pursuing their case, they may, in the alternative, file a 28 motion for the Court to dismiss their case without prejudice in accordance with Federal 1 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). Plaintiffs may either file a joint motion with 2 Defendants under Rule 41(a)(2), or file an ex parte motion demonstrating that Defendants 3 will not suffer “plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Hamilton v. Firestone 4 Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). 5 B. Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 82) 6 Plaintiffs seek appointment of counsel (ECF No. 82.) Unlike criminal defendants, 7 prisoners and indigents in civil actions have no constitutional right to counsel unless their 8 physical liberty is at stake. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 9 Whether a court appoints counsel for indigent litigants is within the court's discretion. 10 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 In civil cases, counsel should be appointed only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. 12 To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court should evaluate two 13 factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the 14 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues involved. 15 Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither factor is dispositive, and 16 both must be evaluated together. Id. Further, an attorney cannot be forced to represent an 17 indigent litigant in a civil case—rather, the attorney can only be “appointed” if he or she 18 voluntarily accepts the appointment. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 19 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) (holding that the appointment of counsel provision in § 1915, 20 formerly found in subsection (d), does not “authorize[ ] a federal court to require an 21 unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case”). 22 Here, Plaintiffs moved for the court to appoint pro bono counsel on the basis that 23 their indigence, homelessness, and disabilities constitute “exceptional circumstances.” See 24 Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. However, absent evidence that their disabilities or homeless 25 significantly interfere with their ability to prosecute the case, Plaintiffs have not 26 demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. See 27 Olson v. Smith, 609 Fed. Appx. 370, 373 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1165 28 (2016) (disabilities); see also Signorelli v. Hughes, 363 Fed. Appx. 455, 456 (9th Cir. 2010) 1 (disabilities); Bolton v. Towing, No. 523CVO0941JLSAJR, 2023 WL 8168951, at *1 (C.D. 2 Nov. 9, 2023) (homelessness); Webb v. NaphCare, Inc., 2022 WL 2192977, at *2 3 ||(W.D. Wash. Jun. 16, 2022) (homelessness and indigence). Plaintiffs have demonstrated 4 || that, despite their adverse circumstances, they have been able to continue prosecuting their 5 and articulating their claims without the assistance of counsel. Further, neither the 6 || facts nor the legal issues involved in this case are unusually complex. Accordingly, the 7 Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 82). 8 ||1V. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the following motions submitted by 10 || Plaintiffs: (1) motion for temporary stay of proceedings (ECF No. 61); (2) motion for 11 ||indefinite stay of proceedings (ECF No. 80); and (3) motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 DATED: February 5, 2026 (yi. (Duhark 16 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28