Bryan Kominiak v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot because the defendants had already paid the filing fee upon removal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard requiring a showing of likelihood of success and inability to articulate claims due to legal complexity. The court found the claims not exceptionally complex and the plaintiff capable of articulating facts, which supports the denial under the cited precedent. |
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis denied as moot“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT as the filing fee has already been paid.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the filing fee was paid by the defendants upon removal, rendering the request for IFP status moot. This is a standard procedural determination. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the high bar for appointing counsel in civil cases. It applies the two-prong test from Palmer v. Valdez and finds the plaintiff fails to meet it. The IFP denial is procedurally correct based on the record of the fee payment. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these routine motions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN KOMINIAK, Case No.: 25cv3113-LL-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 6]; 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL., 15 Defendants. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 PAUPERIS [ECF No. 7] 17 18 Pending before the Court is a Motion for Appointment of Counsel by pro se Plaintiff, 19 Bryan Kominiak. ECF No. 6. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and 20 appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the 21 trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of 22 America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 23 Cir. 1991) (noting that only “exceptional circumstances” support such a discretionary 24 appointment). Exceptional circumstances exist where there is cumulative showing of both 25 a likelihood of success on the merits and an inability of the pro se litigant to articulate his 26 claims in light of their legal complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 27 2009). 28 1 The Court finds that Plaintiff is capable of legibly articulating the facts and 2 ||circumstances relevant to his claims, which are not exceptionally legally complex. 3 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 4 Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, in which 5 || Plaintiff seeks to proceed in this case without payment of fees. ECF No. 7. However, upon 6 ||removal of this action from state court to federal court by the Defendants, they paid the 7 ||requisite filing fee of $405 dollars as evidenced by receipt number ACASDC-20475594. 8 || See ECF No. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED 9 || AS MOOT as the filing fee has already been paid. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 24, 2026 NO 12 DE | 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28