Arellano v. Blahnik
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Raul Arellano v. R. Blahnik (2024-05-02) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Raul Arellano moved for the appointment of pro bono counsel to assist him at an evidentiary hearing regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court denied the motion, finding that exceptional circumstances were not met because the plaintiff is familiar with the legal process and pro bono availability is limited.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel Denied“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for counsel to represent him at the evidentiary hearing.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's standard for appointing counsel in civil cases, which requires a showing of 'exceptional circumstances' based on the likelihood of success and the complexity of the issues. The court found that the plaintiff's history of filing multiple lawsuits demonstrated familiarity with the legal process, negating the 'inability to articulate claims' prong of the test. Additionally, the court noted the practical limitation of pro bono availability due to the pandemic. The decision follows the cited authorities and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for appointing counsel in a civil case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies the two-pronged test from Harrington v. Scribner, specifically focusing on the plaintiff's ability to articulate claims. The court supports its finding that the plaintiff is capable of representing himself by citing his history of filing numerous lawsuits and his successful opposition to a prior summary judgment motion. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-MSB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. No. 190] 11 12 BLAHNIK, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff Raul Arellano filed a motion for counsel to assist him 18 with the upcoming evidentiary hearing regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies. 19 [Doc. No. 190.] As Plaintiff is aware, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil 20 case. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 21 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). And while 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) grants the district court 22 limited discretion to “request” that an attorney represent an indigent civil litigant, 23 Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), this discretion 24 is exercised only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 25 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires the Court “to 26 consider whether there is a ‘likelihood of success on the merits’ and whether ‘the prisoner 27 is unable to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” 28 Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Palmer, 560 F.3d 1 || at 970). 2 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for counsel to represent him at the 3 ||evidentiary hearing. While there was some discussion in the past about possibly 4 || providing Plaintiff with pro bono counsel [see Doc. No. 165 at 2], the Court has 5 reevaluated the matter and now DENIES the request. First, due to the COVID-19 6 || pandemic, the availability of pro bono counsel has been severely curtailed. Second, 7 || pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b) and (c), the Court takes judicial notice of 8 || the fact that Plaintiff has filed thirteen lawsuits in this court against prison officials and 9 || other law enforcement personnel, nine of which are still pending.! As a result, Plaintiff is 10 || very familiar with the legal process and is fully capable of articulating his claims and 11 ||arguments.” Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for pro bono counsel to 12 ||represent him at the evidentiary hearing regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies. 13 || Plaintiff may renew the motion for counsel should the case proceed to jury trial. 14 || Dated: June 8, 2021 € □ 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 || 23 ||! Arellano v. Hodge, 14cv590-JLS-JLB(open); Arellano v. County of San Diego, 14cv2404-GPC- KSC(open); Arellano v. Sedighi, 15cv2059-AJB-BGS(open); Arellano v. Milton, 15cv2069-JAH- AHG(open); Arellano vy. Dean, 15cv2247-JLS-JLB(open); Arellano v. Blahnik, 16cv2412-CAB- 25 || MSB(open); Arellano v. Santos, 18cv2391-BTM-WVG(open); Arellano v. Jones, 20cv228-TWR- RBM(open); Arellano v. Guldseth, 20cv1633-TWR-RBM(open); Arellano v. Ojeda, 14cv2401-MMA- 26 || JLB(closed); Arellano v. Self, 15cv2300-AJB-LL(closed); Arellano v. Lamborn, 19cv2360-JAH- LLi(closed); Arellano v. Doe, 20cv1564-BAS-BGS (closed). 27 |\!? For example, Plaintiff filed an opposition [Doc. No. 150, 162] to Defendant’s motion for summary 28 judgment regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies [Doc. No. 134], and Defendant’s motion was ultimately denied [Doc. No. 160, 163].