Salinas v. Montgomery
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruben B. Brooks (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Armando Salinas, a pro se prisoner, moved to appoint counsel citing inability to access the law library due to the pandemic and the need for discovery assistance. The court denied the motion, finding that Salinas failed to demonstrate the 'exceptional circumstances' required for appointment because he did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and was competent to articulate his non-complex claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Denied“Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, his motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard from Terrell v. Brewer, requiring a showing of 'exceptional circumstances' based on the likelihood of success and the complexity of the case. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden by not demonstrating a likelihood of success and by showing competence in articulating his claims. This is a standard application of the discretionary authority granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the governing legal standard for appointing counsel in civil cases within the Ninth Circuit. The court explicitly addresses both prongs of the Terrell test (likelihood of success and complexity/competence) and provides specific factual reasons for denying the motion (lack of shown likelihood of success and demonstrated competence). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a discretionary denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO SALINAS, Case No.: 19cv0744-AJB(RBB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. [ECF NO. 22] 14 W.L. MONTGOMERY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Armando Salinas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis, alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant 19 A. Young, formerly known as F. Hodo. On September 22, 2020, the Court received 20 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, which was filed nunc pro tunc to September 18, 21 2020 [ECF No. 22]. Plaintiff requests that counsel be appointed because he is unable to 22 access the prison law library due to the COVID-19 pandemic and needs counsel’s 23 assistance with conducting discovery. (Pl.’s Mot. 1, ECF No. 22.) As explained below, 24 his motion is DENIED. 25 “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 26 Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District 27 courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to appoint counsel | || for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v. 2 || Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances 3 |/requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 4 || the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 5 |/involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 6 || before reaching a decision.’” Id. (citations omitted). 7 Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances. 8 || First, he has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Second, the facts alleged in 9 || the First Amended Complaint are not complex and Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability 10 || to articulate the factual and legal bases of his claim with sufficient clarity. Based on the 11 |/information currently before the Court, Plaintiff appears to have the competence 12 ||necessary to pursue his case. 13 Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” warranting 14 || the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, his motion is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: September 29, 2020 ) | Z, 18 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ° 19cv0744-AJB(RBB)