Scott Desrosiers v. Mildred Garcia, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Scott Desrosiers moved for denial of access to courts and appointment of pro bono counsel, alleging that a defendant's falsification of an investigation prevented him from obtaining counsel. The court denied the motion, holding that denial of counsel in a civil rights claim is not a denial of access to courts and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for appointment of counsel in a civil case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Denial of Access to Courts and Appointment of Counsel“Thus, for the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 9.)” | agree with court The court correctly applies the principle from Lewis v. Casey that the right of access to courts is not violated merely by the denial of counsel in a civil case. Furthermore, the court correctly notes that under Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to counsel unless physical liberty is at stake. The court then applies the Terrell v. Brewer standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases, requiring a showing of exceptional circumstances. The order states that the plaintiff has not alleged such circumstances, particularly given the early stage of the proceedings. This follows the established law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for both the access to courts claim and the request for appointed counsel. It cites binding Supreme Court precedent (Lewis, Lassiter) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Terrell) to support its conclusion. The reasoning directly addresses the plaintiff's arguments by applying the correct legal tests and finding the plaintiff's allegations insufficient under those tests.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT DESROSIERS, Case No. 26-cv-02111-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS 14 MILDRED GARCIA, et. al, TO COURTS AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 9) 15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff Scott Desrosiers (“Plaintiff”) brings a motion for denial of access to courts 18 against Defendant Inspector Katz for allegedly falsifying a government investigation 19 (“Motion”), since such falsification allegedly prevented Plaintiff from obtaining pro bono 20 counsel. (ECF No. 9.) In the same Motion, Plaintiff requests appointment of pro bono 21 counsel. 22 First, “[t]he denial of counsel in a civil rights claim is not a denial of access to the 23 courts.” Sharp v. Montana, No. CV 13-88-GF-DWM, 2014 WL 824820, at *4 (D. Mont. 24 Mar. 3, 2014), aff'd, No. 14-35207, 2014 WL 12972230 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2014) (citing 25 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). 26 Second, unlike criminal defendants, indigent civil litigants have no constitutional 27 right to counsel unless their physical liberty is at stake. Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 28 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Even assuming Plaintiff is an indigent civil litigant, Plaintiff has 1 alleged any exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of a pro bono counsel— 2 especially given the early stage of proceedings. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 3 Cir. 1991) (two factors determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist: (1) the 4 || likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 5 || his claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues involved). 6 Thus, for the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 9.) 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ~ 9 || DATED: May 27, 2026 (yatta Bahar □□ 10 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a.