Anaya v. Vasquez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel in a civil rights action that had been dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for appointment, specifically a likelihood of success on the merits.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Denied“the Court DENIES Plaintiff’ s motion for appointment of counsel at this time without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing counsel in civil cases, which requires a showing of exceptional circumstances, defined as a likelihood of success on the merits and an inability to articulate claims due to legal complexity. The court noted that the plaintiff's claims were not exceptionally complex and that the plaintiff had not yet shown a likelihood of success, particularly given the recent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Therefore, the denial was consistent with the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly applies the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent to the facts presented. It correctly identifies the two-pronged test for exceptional circumstances and applies the court's prior finding (dismissal for failure to state a claim) to negate the likelihood of success prong. It also addresses the complexity prong based on the plaintiff's ability to articulate facts. No significant arguments or authorities were omitted.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL RIVERA ANAYA, Case No.: 24cv0863-CAB (JLB) BOOKING #44512359, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 APPOINT COUNSEL vs. 14 15 WARDEN V. VASQUEZ, ASSISTANT 16 WARDEN T. HARTLEY and HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR 17 LOVELESS, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff Daniel Rivera Anaya, detained at the GEO Western Region Detention 22 Facility in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. (ECF No. 23 1.) On May 17, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 24 dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 25 (ECF No. 4.) The dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff to amend on or before July 26 1, 2024. (Id. at 7.) On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to appoint counsel 27 in which he states that his detention and lack of legal resources makes obtaining evidence 28 in support of his claims difficult without appointed counsel. (ECF No. 5.) 1 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and appointment of counsel 2 |junder 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted 3 || only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 4 || 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that 5 || only “exceptional circumstances” support such a discretionary appointment). Exceptional 6 || circumstances exist where there is cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on 7 merits and an inability of the pro se litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal 8 ||complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 Because it appears Plaintiff is capable of legibly articulating the facts and 10 |}circumstances relevant to his claims, which are not exceptionally legally complex, and 11 || because as noted in the Court’s Order of Dismissal, dated May 17, 2024, Plaintiff has yet 12 show he is likely to succeed on the merits of the claims, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’ s 13 |}motion for appointment of counsel at this time without prejudice to its renewal at a later 14 || stage of these proceedings. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: May 23, 2024 € 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 □□