(PC) Santos Rodriguez v. Santoro

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 9/7/2021. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-01263-HBK Document 6 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-01263-HBK (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL v. (Doc. No. 4) KELLY SANTORO, Warden at North Kern State Prison, Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Santos Rodriguez is a former state prisoner proceeding on his complaint filed 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s construed 20 motion seeking appointment of counsel filed September 3, 2021. (Doc. No. 4). 21 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 22 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 23 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). This Court has discretionary authority 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a 25 civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for 26 people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 27 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 28 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in Case 1:21-cv-01263-HBK Document 6 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2 1 “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The Court may consider many factors to determine if 2 exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of 3 indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 4 or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. 5 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 6 banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court “is not required to articulate reasons for denying 7 appointment of counsel if the reasons are clear from the record.” Johnson v. United States Dept. 8 of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir.1991). 9 Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel consists of a single sentence: “I’d like 10 to request a lawyer under these completely new and different circumstances of this technology.” 11 (Doc. No. 4). Due to the brevity of the motion, the Court cannot discern what “technology” or 12 circumstances are challenging Plaintiff. Normal challenges faced by pro se litigants do not 13 warrant appointment of counsel. Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020) 14 (denying appointment of counsel because the plaintiff’s “circumstances were not exceptionally 15 different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants.”) Unfamiliarity with the 16 law is a common challenge for pro se litigants. Plaintiff fails to show exceptional circumstances 17 to warrant appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. Should this case progress and 18 Plaintiff’s circumstances change so that he is able to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, he 19 may renew his motion for appointment of counsel at that time.1 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. 22 23 Dated: September 7, 2021 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff is welcome to view the resources for pro se litigants available at https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/. While the website is specific to our neighboring Central District of California, it nonetheless contains information helpful for guiding pro se litigants in the Eastern District. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?