Adams v. City of Hayward et al

Filing 63

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 60 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERRI ADAMS,

Case No. 14-cv-05482-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

9
10

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion in which she requests court-appointed

14

counsel. (Pl.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 60.) In general, there is no right to appointed counsel in a civil

15

action. See United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1978). But the court, in its

16

discretion, may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) if it finds that there are "exceptional

17

circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When

18

determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court evaluates the plaintiff's likelihood

19

of success on the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his or her claims in light of the

20

complexity of the legal issues involved in the case. Id.

21

In this case, Plaintiff requests appointed counsel because "she is not able to investigate

22

crucial facts on account of the [l]imitations of her current medical health conditions, based on her

23

[c]urrent health care restrictions." (Pl.'s Mot. at 2.) She does not, however, specify what those

24

conditions are, the limitations that result from them, or how, if at all, they impact her ability to

25

articulate her claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved in the case. (Id.)

26

Indeed, Plaintiff commenced this action pro se, and in her complaint, she adequately alleges the

27

substance of her claims. In light of this, there is nothing to suggest that Plaintiff's claimed medical

28

conditions negatively impact her ability to articulate her claims in light of the straightforward legal

1

issues involved in this § 1983 case. Nor does it appear that Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the

2

merits, at this stage of the case, warrants appointment of counsel.1

3

For these reasons, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional circumstances warrant

4

appointment of counsel, and as a result, her motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. Nonetheless,

5

the Court will refer her to the Federal Pro Bono Project for free limited legal assistance. Plaintiff

6

may contact the Federal Pro Bono Project by calling the appointment line at [phone] or by

7

signing up for an appointment in the appointment book located outside the San Francisco or

8

Oakland Legal Help Center office. Appointments are held Monday through Friday at various

9

times throughout the day. Plaintiff can speak with an attorney who will provide basic legal help,

10

but not legal representation.
Because the instant motion is DENIED, Plaintiff must comply with the Court's order

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

granting Mr. Finley's motion to withdraw. If Plaintiff has failed to secure replacement counsel by

13

the next case management conference, the Court will discuss whether it is appropriate for Plaintiff

14

to file a renewed motion to appoint counsel at that time or whether it might be more appropriate to

15

appoint pro bono counsel for the limited purposes of assisting Plaintiff with settlement negotiation

16

in a mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 09/11/2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In her motion, Plaintiff also indicates that she is "currently being represented by counsel . . .
[who] is either unwilling or otherwise unable to continue in this litigation." Pl.'s Mot. at 2. The
Court notes that counsel withdrew at Plaintiff's request. See Dkt. Nos. 53, 55.
2