Walter Sayles v. Amaya
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Walter Sayles, an incarcerated pro se litigant, moved for the appointment of pro bono counsel based on his indigence, disability, and incarceration. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances and was able to articulate his claims without assistance.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's two-factor test for appointing counsel in civil cases: likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate claims pro se. The court found that the plaintiff's specific circumstances (indigence, disability, incarceration) did not significantly interfere with his ability to prosecute the case, as evidenced by his continued filing of documents. Additionally, the court noted the case was not unusually complex and the likelihood of success could not be determined at this early stage. This aligns with established precedent that appointment is reserved for exceptional circumstances. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from the Ninth Circuit (Terrell v. Brewer) and applies it to the specific facts presented. It cites relevant case law to support the conclusion that the plaintiff's cited circumstances (indigence, disability, incarceration) do not automatically warrant appointment of counsel. The court's finding that the plaintiff has been able to continue prosecuting the case without assistance is a factual determination supported by the record (the existence of the motion itself). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order denying a motion for appointment of counsel.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER SAYLES, Case No. 26-cv-01539-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 2) 14 AMAYA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 In civil cases, counsel should be appointed only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. 18 To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court evaluates two factors: (1) 19 the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to 20 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues involved. Terrell v. 21 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither factor is dispositive, and both must 22 be evaluated together. Id. Further, an attorney cannot be forced to represent an indigent 23 litigant in a civil case—rather, the attorney can only be “appointed” if he or she voluntarily 24 accepts the appointment. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 25 296, 298 (1989) (holding that the appointment of counsel provision in § 1915, formerly 26 found in subsection (d), does not “authorize[ ] a federal court to require an unwilling 27 attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case”). 28 1 Here, Plaintiff Walter Sayles seeks pro bono counsel on the basis of his indigence, 2 || his disability, and his status as incarcerated. (ECF No. 2.) However, absent evidence that 3 these factors significantly interfere with Plaintiff's ability to prosecute the case, Plaintiff 4 ||has not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. 5 || See Olson v. Smith, 609 Fed. Appx. 370, 373 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1165 6 (2016) (disabilities); see also Signorelli v. Hughes, 363 Fed. Appx. 455, 456 (9th Cir. 7 ||2010); (disabilities); Bolton v. Towing, No. 523CV00941JLSAJR, 2023 WL 8168951, at 8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2023) (homelessness); Webb v. NaphCare, Inc., 2022 WL 2192977, 9 || at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 16, 2022) (homelessness and indigence). 10 Plaintiff has demonstrated that, despite adverse circumstances, he has been able to 11 continue prosecuting his case and articulating his claims without the assistance of counsel. 12 || Further, neither the facts nor the legal issues involved in this case are unusually complex. 13 this early point in the litigation, the Court cannot discern whether Plaintiff has a 14 || likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion 15 || for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2.) 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ~ 18 || DATED: April 30, 2026 (yi. (Duhark 19 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28