Scott DesRosiers v. Mildred Garcia, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Scott DesRosiers moved for the appointment of pro bono counsel in a civil action against Mildred Garcia and others. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the 'exceptional circumstances' required for appointment, noting his ability to prosecute the case pro se and the inability to assess merit at an early stage.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 6).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's two-factor test for appointing counsel in civil cases (likelihood of success and ability to articulate claims). The order recites that the plaintiff has been able to continue prosecuting the case and articulating claims without assistance, which directly addresses the second factor. The court also correctly noted that the first factor (merit) cannot be determined at this early stage. While the order briefly cites cases regarding disabilities and homelessness, it concludes that the plaintiff's specific ability to proceed pro se outweighs the need for appointment. This is a defensible application of the discretionary standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standard from the Ninth Circuit. It identifies the relevant factors and applies them to the specific facts recited (plaintiff's ability to proceed pro se). It does not skip any major arguments or authorities necessary for the decision.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 SCOTT DESROSIERS, Case No. 26-cv-02111-BAS-DEB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 15 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 6) 16 MILDRED GARCIA, et. al, 17 Defendants. 18 Before the Court is a motion for appointment of counsel by Plaintiff Scott 19 DesRosiers. (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 20 (Id.) 21 Unlike criminal defendants, indigents in civil actions have no constitutional right to 22 counsel unless their physical liberty is at stake. Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 23 18, 25 (1981). Whether a court appoints counsel for indigent litigants is within the court's 24 discretion. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In civil cases, 25 counsel should be appointed only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. To determine 26 whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court should evaluate two factors: (1) the 27 likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 28 1 claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 2 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither factor is dispositive, and both must be evaluated 3 ||together. /d. Further, an attorney cannot be forced to represent an indigent litigant in a 4 || civil case—rather, the attorney can only be “appointed” if he or she voluntarily accepts the 5 ||appointment. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) 6 (holding that the appointment of counsel provision in § 1915 does not “authorize[ | a 7 federal court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil 8 || case”). 9 Here, Plaintiff seeks pro bono counsel on the basis of his indigence. (ECF No. 6.) 10 || However, absent evidence that these factors significantly interfere with Plaintiff's ability 11 prosecute the case, he has not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” warranting 12 appointment of counsel. See Olson v. Smith, 609 Fed. Appx. 370, 373 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. 13 || denied, 136 S.Ct. 1165 (2016) (disabilities); see also Signorelli v. Hughes, 363 Fed. Appx. 14 456 (9th Cir. 2010); (disabilities); Bolton v. Towing, No. 523CV00941JLSAJIR, 2023 15 || WL 8168951, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2023) (homelessness); Webb v. NaphCare, Inc., 16 }}2022 WL 2192977, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 16, 2022) (homelessness and indigence). 17 || Plaintiff has demonstrated that, despite his adverse circumstances, he has been able to 18 |}continue prosecuting their case and articulating their claims without the assistance of 19 ||counsel. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether 20 || Plaintiff's claims are meritorious. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion 21 ||(ECF No. 6). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || DATED: May 5, 2026 (yi. Duhark 5 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 26 27 28