Quinn Bass v. Sammy J Auto Sales
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel in a civil consumer warranty case. The court denied the request without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the 'exceptional circumstances' required by statute because the legal issues were not complex and it was too early to assess the likelihood of success on the merits.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the two-part test from Ninth Circuit precedent (Palmer v. Valdez) for determining whether 'exceptional circumstances' exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court found that the plaintiff adequately articulated his claims (failing the complexity prong) and that it was premature to assess the likelihood of success at the complaint stage. This is a standard and legally sound application of the discretionary authority granted to district courts in civil cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and Ninth Circuit case law) and applies the two-pronged test (complexity and likelihood of success) to the specific facts recited in the order. The conclusion that the issues are not complex and that the merits assessment is premature is a reasonable exercise of discretion based on the record provided.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUINN BASS, Case No.: 26cv819-LL-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 SAMMY J AUTO SALES, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 2] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 2. On 18 February 10, 2026, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Sammy J Auto 19 Sales alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the California Song- 20 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, as well as other state law claims arising out of his 21 purchase of a 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe from Defendant. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff contends that 22 he does not have “the proper resources to obtain counsel nor adjudicate this case” while 23 “defendants have the resources to obtain sufficient counsel.” ECF No. 2. 24 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 25 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). 26 The Court has discretion in “exceptional circumstances” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to 27 “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Determining whether “exceptional circumstances” | || exist requires consideration of both (1) a plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits” 2 || and (2) whether the [plaintiff] “is unable to articulate [her] claims in light of the complexity 3 || of the issues involved.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; see also Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 4 111299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015); see Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 5 || 1986). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and must be viewed together.” 6 || Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. 7 The Court finds Plaintiff's current circumstances are insufficient to demonstrate the 8 || “exceptional circumstances” required to justify appointment of counsel. Upon review of 9 || the complaint, the issues raised do not appear complex. Plaintiff has adequately articulated 10 claims of wrongdoing and his requests for relief. As to whether Plaintiff is likely to 11 ||succeed on the merits, the Court finds it is too early to determine when only the complaint 12 ||1s before the Court and with no arguments or evidence demonstrating Plaintiff will prevail 13 || on the merits. See Garcia v. Smith, No. 10-cv1187-AJB (RBB), 2012 WL 2499003, at *3 14 }/(S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (denying motion for appointment of counsel when it was too 15 early to determine whether any of plaintiff's claims would survive a motion for summary 16 ||judgment). Therefore, in making the required considerations, the Court finds Plaintiffs 17 || situation does not rise to “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. 18 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: March 30, 2026 NO 21 DE | 22 Honorable Linda Lopez 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28