Parrish Juan Chambers v. Deputies in County and San Diego Sheriff Department
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, an incarcerated pro se litigant, moved for the appointment of pro bono counsel in a civil action. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the 'exceptional circumstances' required for such an appointment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Denied“For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to appoint pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 3.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard from Terrell v. Brewer, which requires a showing of 'exceptional circumstances' based on the likelihood of success and the ability to articulate claims. The court noted that incarceration alone is insufficient and that the likelihood of success could not be determined at the pleading stage. This is a standard application of the discretionary framework for appointing counsel in civil cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the lack of a constitutional right to counsel in civil cases and applies the appropriate Ninth Circuit discretionary standard (Terrell v. Brewer). It logically concludes that the plaintiff's status as an inmate is insufficient to meet the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold and that the merits cannot be assessed at the initial stage. The reasoning is complete and supported by binding and persuasive authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 PARRISH JUAN CHAMBERS, Case No. 26-cv-00377-BAS-VET 16 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3) 18 DEPUTIES IN COUNTY and SAN DIEGO SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff Parrish Juan Chambers seeks appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3.) Unlike 22 criminal defendants, prisoners and indigents in civil actions have no constitutional right to 23 counsel unless their physical liberty is at stake. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 24 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Whether a court appoints counsel for indigent litigants is within the 25 court's discretion. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 In civil cases, counsel should be appointed only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. 27 To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court should evaluate two 28 factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the | || plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues involved. 2 || Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither factor is dispositive, and 3 || both must be evaluated together. /d. Further, an attorney cannot be forced to represent an 4 ||indigent litigant in a civil case—rather, the attorney can only be “appointed” if he or she 5 || voluntarily accepts the appointment. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 6 ||490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) (holding that the appointment of counsel provision in § 1915, 7 ||formerly found in subsection (d), does not “authorize[ |] a federal court to require an 8 |;}unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case”). 9 Here, Plaintiff moves for the court to appoint pro bono counsel on the basis that he 10 |/is incarcerated. Unfortunately, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish 11 exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. See 12 || Driver v. Kern Cnty. Superior Ct., No. 220CV1665JAMKJNP, 2022 WL 379243, at *1 13 ||(E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2022). In addition, the case is in beginning stages and the Court is unable 14 || to determine the likelihood of success at this stage. Jones v. Brennan, No. 18-CV-07569- 15 |] HSG, 2019 WL 1925495, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) 16 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to appoint pro bono 17 |}counsel. (ECF No. 3.) 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 DATED: February 5, 2026 (yatta Bahar >] H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_