Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID CLARENCE DEGEUS, Case No.: 25-cv-3083-BJC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT COUNSEL; 13 v. GRANTING MOTION FOR SERVICE 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et. al., BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL; AND GRANTING MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY 16 FILE DOCUMENTS 17 [ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12] 18 19 INTRODUCTION 20 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, motion 21 for service by the United States Marshal, and motion for leave to electronically file 22 documents. ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES 23 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for service by 24 the United States Marshal, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to electronically file 25 documents. 26 DISCUSSION 27 I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 28 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 1 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may “appoint counsel 2 for indigent civil litigants” based on a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Id. (citing 3 Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). In determining 4 whether exceptional circumstances exist, the must evaluate both “the likelihood of success 5 on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 6 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 7 Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Neither factor 8 is dispositive, and must be viewed together. Id. The plaintiff has the burden of 9 demonstrating exceptional circumstances. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not 10 made the requisite showing of exceptional circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); 11 accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 Fed. App’x. 830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to 12 show exceptional circumstances”); Simmons v. Hambly, 14 Fed. App’x. 918, 919 (9th Cir. 13 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough, 459 Fed. App’x. 601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff 14 “did not show the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(e)(1).”). Additionally, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he made a reasonably 16 diligent effort to secure counsel before he is eligible for an appointed attorney. Bailey v. 17 Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (extending the “reasonably diligent 18 effort” standard used in Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1319 19 (9th Cir. 1981) to requests made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915). 20 Plaintiff demonstrates his indigency and that he made diligent efforts to obtain 21 counsel. See ECF No. 10-1 ¶¶ 4, 5. Plaintiff contends he requires counsel to prosecute 22 this action because he suffers from significant physical and psychological limitations and 23 PTSD which can substantially impair his ability to manage the demands of this litigation. 24 ECF No. 10 at 3-4. He also contends the litigation is unusually complex, and he was able 25 to get beyond screening only because he received the assistance of his daughter. Id. at 4. 26 The Court finds Plaintiff fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support 27 appointment of counsel. Plaintiff asserts claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 28 U.S.C. § 407, California’s Unfair Competition Law, fraud, conversion, negligence, and 1 intentional infliction of emotional distress for the misrepresentations made by Defendants 2 resulting in overpayment of child support and improper garnishment of his social security 3 benefits and tax refunds. The issues presented by his claims are not unusually complex, 4 and Plaintiff has demonstrated he has sufficient knowledge of the facts supporting his 5 claims. In addition, there is little before the Court regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s case 6 to support a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Thus, at this stage of the 7 case, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. See Bailey, 835 8 F. Supp. at 552 (denying motion for appointment of counsel because plaintiff did not offer 9 any evidence in the motion, and it was too early to determine whether any of his claims 10 would succeed on the merits). As such, the motion is denied. 11 II. Motion for Service by the United States Marshal 12 Plaintiff requests service by the U.S. Marshal. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in 13 forma pauperis, the Court may order service by the U.S. Marshal under 28 U.S.C. § 14 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process” in all cases in which 15 the party is proceeding in forma pauperis”). Accordingly, the Court grants the motion. 16 III. Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents 17 “Except as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court has 18 designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 19 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the 20 court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper 21 form.” Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) 22 (January 25, 2025) [“ECF Manual”]. “A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file 23 documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their 24 equipment and software capabilities, in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies 25 in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Id. The ECF Manual 26 refers to the Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(i), 27 which include a “[c]omputer running on Windows 7 or higher, or MacOS X or higher, or 28 Linux”; “[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to PDF, such as 1 || Adobe Acrobat; “[d]ocument scanner to convert paper documents to PDF files”; “[i]nternet 2 ||access capable of downloading and uploading file sizes up to 35 MB”; a compatible 3 || browser, such as “Firefox 15 or higher, Microsoft Edge, or Safari 5.1 or higher”; and “[a]n 4 |}email account to receive notifications from the Court.” United States District Court, 5 ||Southern District of California, Electronic Filing Information. If granted leave to file 6 || electronically, a plaintiff must register as a user with the Clerk’s Office and as a PACER 7 subscriber within five days of the date of the order. See ECF Manual. 8 Plaintiff represents he has access to the technical requirements necessary including 9 ||a computer, software to convert documents, a scanner, internet access, a compatible 10 || browser, and email. ECF No. 12. He further affirms he has reviewed, and agrees to comply 11 || with, the CM/ECF rules and procedures. /d. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to 12 || electronically file documents is GRANTED. 13 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 15 |}counsel, GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for service by the U.S. Marshal, and GRANTS 16 || Plaintiff's motion for leave to electronically file documents. 17 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff a blank Form 285 for the 18 defendants along with certified copies of the complaint and summons. Plaintiff must 19 |}complete the Form 285s as completely and as accurately as possible, and return them to 20 U.S. Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: July 29, 2026 23 24 Degen (4, □□□ ao 25 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 26 United States District Judge 27 28