In re Wentworth Civil Rights Cases
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to reinstate a dismissed action and enter judgment in a consolidated civil rights case. The court denied both motions, finding no exceptional circumstances for counsel and noting the plaintiff failed to file a required amended complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel denied“Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s request for appointment of counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that there is no right to counsel in civil cases and that appointment is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) only upon a showing of 'exceptional circumstances.' The court cited the requisite factors (likelihood of success and ability to articulate claims) and concluded they were not met based on the review of the request. The denial follows from the law and the record recited. |
Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Action and Enter Judgment denied“Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s motion to reinstate this action.” | agree with court The court denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint by the deadline set in the prior order (ECF No. 11) and failed to follow instructions to continue with the consolidated case. The court noted the original complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The denial is supported by the procedural history recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases, citing binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority. It applies the 'exceptional circumstances' test and denies the motion based on the review of the request. For the motion to reinstate, the court relies on the procedural history that the plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline to file an amended complaint after the initial dismissal for failure to state a claim. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these procedural denials.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE WENTWORTH CIVIL RIGHTS No. 21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS CASES, 12 ORDER: 13 (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 14 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 15 (ECF No. 16); AND 16 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 REINSTATE DISMISSED ACTION AND ENTER 18 JUDGMENT (ECF No. 18) 19 20 On April 16, 2021, Ms. Dawn Wentworth, on her own behalf and on behalf of her 21 two children, Yaw Appiah and Journee Hudson, filed seventy-four civil rights complaints 22 in this federal district court. Many of these complaints are duplicative, suing the same 23 defendants with the same allegations. The Court issued an order consolidating most of the 24 cases. (Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No. 5.) The Court also issued an order setting a 25 hearing to discuss Ms. Wentworth’s many lawsuits. (ECF No. 8.) Ms. Wentworth did not 26 appear at the hearing. (ECF No. 10.) 27 In this consolidated case, the Court granted the request to proceed in forma pauperis 28 (“IFP”) and dismissed the underlying complaints because they did not state a claim. (ECF 1 No. 11.) The Court ordered Ms. Wentworth to file an Amended Complaint by August 27, 2 2021. (Id.) She did not do so. Then, in November 2021, Ms. Wentworth filed two motions 3 presently before the Court: a request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16); and a 4 motion to reinstate this consolidated action and enter judgment (ECF No. 18). 5 I. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 7 Tr. Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts do not 8 have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. District 9 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 10 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 11 Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to 12 “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional 13 circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); 14 accord Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). “A finding of the 15 exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation 16 of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s 17 ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” 18 Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 19 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 Here, Ms. Wentworth seeks appointment of counsel because she argues she lacks 21 funds to hire an attorney and has no legal training. (ECF No. 16.) Having reviewed Ms. 22 Wentworth’s request, the Court concludes there are not “exceptional circumstances” 23 warranting an appointment in this case. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 24 2004). Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s request for appointment of 25 counsel. 26 II. MOTION TO REINSTATE ACTION 27 Ms. Wentworth asks the Court to “reinstate all cases dismissed” and “enter a 28 judgment in favor of” Plaintiffs “and against all defendants [in the] dismissed cases jointly 1 severally in the amount of” relief sought. (ECF No. 18.) As mentioned above, the 2 ||Court screened Ms. Wentworth’s many complaints and ordered her to file an Amended 3 ||Complaint by August 27, 2021. (/d.) Because she did not file an Amended Complaint 4 ||that states a plausible claim or follow the Court’s instructions to continue with this 5 ||consolidated case, her motion lacks merit. Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. 6 || Wentworth’s motion to reinstate this action. 7 Conclusion 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s Motion to Appoint 9 ||Counsel. (ECF No. 16.) The Court also DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s Motion to Reinstate 10 || Dismissed Action and for Entry of Judgment. (ECF No. 18.) 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ) 13 | DATED: November 29, 2021 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28