Curtis Clifford Ingram v. Unknown Agents of Long Beach Police Department et al

Filing 79

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: denying 77 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (twdb)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 11-5962 DOC(OPx)

Date: July 1, 2014

Title: CURTIS CLIFFORD INGRAM V. UNKNOWN AGENTS OF LONG BEACH
POLICE DEPT. ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL [77]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Curtis Clifford Ingram’s (“Ingram”) motion for
appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Mot. (Dkt. 77). The Court
finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78;
L.R. 7-15. After considering the motion, the Court DENIES the request.
I.

Background

The operative complaint in this case is the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”)
(Dkt. 23). The claim remaining for resolution at trial is Plaintiff’s excessive force claim
under the Fourth Amendment.
Plaintiff’s claim arises out of his arrest in Long Beach, California. He was
approached by two police officers who simultaneously discharged their tasers. The two
probes hit Mr. Ingram simultaneously, allegedly causing significant harm:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 11-5962 DOC(OPx)

Date: July 1, 2014
Page 2

The cross currents from the two sets of probes cycling simultaneously left
him with “difficulty breathing, chronic headaches, blurred vision, chronic
pain in the areas of tasers, convolution of nerves along back, neck, and
chest, prehypertension high blood pressure, difficulty focusing and/or
thinking clearly, severe genital discomfort, sensitivity to light, and
vibrations in legs and feet.” . . . As a result of these physical difficulties,
Plaintiff’s grades at Long Beach City College declined, and he was unable
to maintain his financial aid. . . . Plaintiff also lost his apartment and ended
up incarcerated.
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 74), adopted by the Court on May 8, 2014 (Dkt. 75),
at 5.
II.

Legal Standard

Federal criminal defendants are entitled to representation of counsel, and the Court
has the power to appoint and compensate counsel in such cases. See United States v.
30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). However, there is no
constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil matters. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d
1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no right to appointed counsel in section 1983 action). The
Court has no direct means to compensate counsel for representing a plaintiff, nor does the
Court have authority to compel an attorney to represent a plaintiff. Mallard v. United
States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 301-10 (1989).
In exceptional circumstances, the Court has discretion to request counsel to
voluntarily provide representation. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); see also Mallard; 30.64
Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 798-803. To decide whether such “exceptional
circumstances” exist, the Court evaluates both the likelihood of a litigant’s success on the
merits and his or her ability to articulate claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
legal issues involved. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017
(9th Cir. 1991). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together
before reaching a decision” regarding appointment of counsel. Wilborn v. Escalderon,
789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may also consider “any of a number of
factors. Among these factors are the complexity of the legal issues presented and the
capability of the litigant to recognize and present the issues, the complexity and
conflicting nature of the facts, the ability of the litigant to investigate his case, and the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 11-5962 DOC(OPx)

Date: July 1, 2014
Page 3

relative substantive value of the claims presented.” Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044,
1048 (7th Cir. 1982).
III.

Discussion

The strength of the merits of Mr. Ingram’s case is murky at best. Mr. Ingram will
argue, based largely on his own testimony, that the officers approached him without
reason and unnecessarily deployed their tasers without warning. The city will argue that
the officers were called to the scene due to an unknown individual banging on the door of
a closed bar, and that the officers believed Mr. Ingram was that suspect. The accounts of
Mr. Ingram and the two officers differ widely, and there are some inconsistencies within
the officers’ statements. The case is neither meritless, nor are the chances of success very
high. The merits question therefore does not weigh strongly in either direction.
Mr. Ingram argues that this case is appropriate for appointment of counsel both
because there is a need for a detached litigator who is not personally involved, and to
unwrap the alleged series of wrongful acts the city took to cover up its bad acts. Mr.
Ingram further argues that complex issues are presented in the form of police procedures,
the proper use of tasers, and likely expert testimony on electrical injuries. Finally, Mr.
Ingram argues that he is unable to litigate these issues as a pro se plaintiff, particularly
because he is incarcerated and therefore cannot investigate.
The Court finds that, considering all relevant factors, appointment of counsel is
not appropriate in this case. Mr. Ingram’s factual and legal issues are not unduly
complex, and Mr. Ingram will have an opportunity to conduct further investigation after
his release, as the case cannot proceed further until that time anyway. Mr. Ingram will
face the challenges of most civil pro se parties, but these challenges will not be outside
the norm. This is simply not an exceptional case that warrants the Court requesting an
attorney.
The motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this
action.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb