Russell v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Christine Ann Russell's motion for appointment of counsel in a civil action against the United States and individual defendants. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for appointment of counsel denied without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases, which requires a showing of exceptional circumstances and a likelihood of success on the merits. The order states that no such circumstances exist at this point in the litigation. Because the denial is without prejudice, the plaintiff retains the right to refile if circumstances change or the case progresses, which is a standard and appropriate procedural outcome when the current record is insufficient to justify appointment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for appointment of counsel in civil cases. It correctly identifies the statutory basis (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)) and the required factors (likelihood of success and ability to articulate). The denial without prejudice is appropriate given the court's finding that no exceptional circumstances currently exist.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Case No. 21-cv-1029-DMS (LL) CHRISTINE ANN RUSSELL, an 12 individual, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 13 Plaintiff, OF COUNSEL 14 v. 15 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DR. LAURA MILLER 16 MD, DR. STACEY CHARAT MD.; DR. ALLYSON DAVIS MD; 17 OTHER INDIVIDUALS, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 21 The Court denies the motion for the following reasons. In general, there is no 22 constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 23 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). 24 In “exceptional circumstances,” however, a court may exercise its discretion and 25 “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. The court must consider both “‘the 27 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate 1 ||560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). At 2 ||this point, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of 3 ||/counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 28, 2021 \ g f a Yn. 6 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 7 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28