Cejas v. Paramo et al

Filing 140

Order Denying 134 without Prejudice Motion to Appoint Counsel: TeleConference set for 12/14/2022 09:30 AM before Judge Jinsook Ohta. A video conference link will be provided to the parties by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the teleconference.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 11/29/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(exs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW A. CEJAS,

12

F-34368

13

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

16

Case No.: 14cv1923-JO-WVG

Defendants.

17
18
19

Pro se Plaintiff Andrew Cejas filed his second motion to appoint counsel pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Dkt. 134. On November 8, 2022, the Court continued the trial

21

date pending its consideration of that motion and has since made multiple unsuccessful

22

referrals to the Court’s Pro Bono Panel pursuant to S.D. Cal. General Order 596. For the

23

following reasons, the Court denies without prejudice the motion to appoint counsel.

24

While the United States Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in

25

civil cases, see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980), the Court may, in

26

its discretion, appoint counsel for an individual who is unable to afford counsel. See 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Such requests are granted only in “exceptional circumstances,” after

28

an evaluation of (1) “the likelihood of success on the merits,” and (2) “the ability of the
1
14cv1923-JO-WVG

1

petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

2

involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt

3

v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that

4

exceptional circumstances exist. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

5

Upon review of the documents that Plaintiff has filed in this case and in other cases,1

6

the Court finds that Plaintiff’s prior filings demonstrate his ability to articulate his legal

7

claims.

8

successfully defend against Defendants’ multiple motions to dismiss and for summary

9

judgment. See, e.g., Dkt. 120. The Court also had the opportunity to observe Plaintiff’s

10

ability to express his ideas and advocate for himself at a hearing on June 16, 2022.

11

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims that prison personnel violated his civil

12

rights when they seized his religious property are not factually or legally “complex.”

13

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to articulate the legal

14

basis and factual circumstances relevant to his claims, neither the interests of justice nor

15

any exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. La Mere

16

v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

17

1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

For example, in the instant case, Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to

26
27
28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the other cases that Plaintiff has filed in this district and his
filings in this case. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
2
14cv1923-JO-WVG

1

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel

2

without prejudice. The Court sets a teleconference on December 14, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. for

3

the purpose of scheduling a new trial date. Any party or counsel may appear by video. A

4

video conference link will be provided to the parties by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the

5

teleconference.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2022

_________________________
Hon. Jinsook Ohta
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

14cv1923-JO-WVG