Vasquez v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel in a civil rights action. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for such an appointment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel denied without prejudice“Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Terrell v. Brewer, evaluating both the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate claims pro se. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not complex and that he had demonstrated a sufficient grasp of the case by surviving screening and summary judgment. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the lack of a right to counsel in civil cases and the discretionary nature of appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It applies the correct two-part test from Terrell v. Brewer and Wilborn v. Escalderon. The court's factual findings—that the plaintiff's claims are not complex and that he has demonstrated an ability to litigate by surviving screening and summary judgment—support the conclusion that exceptional circumstances are not present. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 HENRY VASQUEZ, Case No.: 18-cv-2097-GPC-MDD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 10 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., 12 Defendants. [ECF No. 42] 13 14 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 15 Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is currently incarcerated at in 16 Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s first request for 17 appointed counsel was denied without prejudice on March 14, 2019. (ECF 18 No. 21). On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second request for 19 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 42). 20 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 21 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, federal courts do not have 22 the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United 23 States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 24 District courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants 26 upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1 |}an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 9 ||the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 3 || legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be 4 || viewed together before reaching a decision.” Jd. (quoting Wilborn v. 5 || Hscalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 6 Here, Plaintiff supports his Motion by stating that he has been 7 ||transferred to different cells multiple times which causes delay or difficulty g receiving mail, his claims against one named defendant survived summary 9 ||judgment, and it is difficult to conduct discovery while incarcerated without 10 assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 42 at 2-3). However, as this Court noted 11 denying Plaintiffs first request for counsel, it appears that Plaintiff has a 12 ||sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is able to 13 |}adequately articulate the basis of his claims as demonstrated by Plaintiffs 14 ||Complaint. (See ECF No. 21). Plaintiff's pro se pleading survived initial 15 ||screening and his claims against one Defendant survived an early summary 16 ||judgment motion. However, the Court notes again that Plaintiffs claims are 17 ||not particularly complex, and although sufficient to survive screening, 18 || Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 19 Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to 90 ||show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel 91 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice 99 || Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 23 IT ISSO ORDERED 94 ||Dated: August 16, 2019 . Mitel fou Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27