Sanchez-Rivera v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The court considered the plaintiff's third motion for the appointment of counsel, which was a single-page document containing only a caption. The court denied the motion, 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“Accordingly, Plaintiff's third Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard that pro se litigants are not entitled to court-appointed counsel absent exceptional circumstances. The order notes that the plaintiff has previously failed to meet this standard in two prior motions and has provided no new information in this single-page filing to suggest a change in circumstances. The denial is consistent with the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct binding Ninth Circuit authority for the standard of review regarding appointment of counsel for pro se litigants. It correctly notes the plaintiff's prior failures to meet the standard and the lack of new content in the current motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN SANCHEZ-RIVERA, Case No.: 22-cv-1254-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION 13 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF 36] 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a single-page document captioned “Motion for 20 Counsel.” (ECF 36.) Although the document does not contain any text beyond the caption, 21 Plaintiff’s name, and case number, the Court construes the filing as a Motion for 22 Appointment of Counsel. 23 Plaintiff has moved for the appointment of counsel on two previous occasions. (See 24 ECF 5, 20.) The Court denied both motions. (See ECF 10, 26.) As before, Plaintiff has 25 failed to show exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See 26 Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 560 27 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 28 / / / 1 ||(9th Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's third Motion for Appointment of Counsel is 2 || DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 19, 2023 p / / > on. Bernard G. Skomal 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28