Arellano, Jr. v. San Diego, County of et al
Filing
132
ORDER denying 129 Plaintiff's Motion for the appointment of investigator and disclosure of names of persons and procedures involved in the execution of arrest warrant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 4/11/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,
Case No.: 14CV2404-JLS(KSC)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT
OF AN INVESTIGATOR AND
DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF
PERSONS AND PROCEDURES
INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION
OF ARREST WARRANT
[DOC. NO. 129]
SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
Presently before the Court is plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr.’s Motion for Magistrate
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge [to] Hear Part of Motion 68 (Exhibit A) Regarding Appointing Counsel or
Investigator and for Disclosure of Names of Officers that Participated in the Execution of
Warrant. [Doc. No. 129.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court DENIES
plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice.
I.
Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of an Investigator
On March 12, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion before the Hon. Janis L. Sammartino
which, in part, requested “an appointed investigator or attorney with investigator,” as well
as an order directing defendants to disclose certain names or persons, procedures, and
agencies involved in the execution of his arrest warrant. [Doc. No. 68, at 2-5.] On March
1
14CV2404-JLS(KSC)
1
21, 2017, Judge Sammartino issued an order denying this portion of plaintiff’s Motion
2
without prejudice, and stating “Plaintiff may re-raise these discovery issues in a new and
3
separate motion set before Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford.” [Doc. No. 69].
4
Thereinafter, on January 30, 2019, plaintiff filed the Motion currently pending before the
5
undersigned, in which he requests the undersigned the relief he sought in 2017, and refers
6
the Court to the arguments he made in his earlier filed Motion. [Doc. No. 128, Ex. A; see
7
also Doc. No. 68 at 2-5].
8
In his 2017 Motion, plaintiff requests the Court appointment an investigator to find
9
the names of persons and agencies involved in the execution of his arrest warrant. [Id.;
10
Doc. No. 68, p. 4]. Plaintiff adds he would like an investigator, or an attorney with an
11
investigator, because in the event new individuals are alleged to be responsible for his
12
arrest, the investigator would be able to track down the names of these individuals prior to
13
the expiration of the statute of limitations. Id.
14
There is no legal authority for the Court to appoint an investigator to advocate on
15
behalf of an unrepresented party such as plaintiff. Because the assistance he seeks is legal
16
in nature, and because plaintiff alternatively requests he be appointed an “attorney with an
17
investigator”, the Court construes his request as a motion for appointment of counsel.
18
An indigent’s right to appointed counsel has been recognized to exist “only where
19
the litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation.” Lassiter v. Department
20
of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 425 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). In certain “exceptional
21
circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Terrell v.
22
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances
23
requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the
24
petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
25
involved.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must
26
be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.
27
Plaintiff has filed four previous motions requesting counsel be appointed on his
28
behalf in this case. [Doc. Nos. 7, 18, 119 & 125]. He makes no argument now that has not
2
14CV2404-JLS(KSC)
1
been previously considered in connection with one or more of those motions. As
2
articulated in the four previous Orders denying his requests for appointment of counsel,
3
there is no basis to support a finding of exceptional circumstances at this time. [See Doc.
4
Nos. 8, 24, 123 & 126]. A pro se prisoner’s inability to afford an attorney, standing alone,
5
is not enough to show exceptional circumstances. This and other hardships imposed by
6
plaintiff’s incarceration “are difficulties which any litigant would have in proceeding pro
7
se; they do not indicate exceptional factors.” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-
8
1336 (9th Cir. 1990).
9
Pro se litigants such as plaintiff are afforded some leniency to compensate for their
10
lack of legal training. This applies to motions. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d
11
920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, plaintiff’s pro se status is, and will continue to be,
12
taken into consideration by the Court when his filings are reviewed.
13
II.
Plaintiff’s Request for Disclosure of Names of Persons and Procedures Involved
14
in Execution of Warrant
15
Plaintiff also requests the Court order defendants the City of San Diego and the
16
County of San Diego disclose the names of the persons, procedures, and agencies involved
17
in the execution of the warrant used to arrest plaintiff in Mexico. [Doc. No. 129, Ex. A, 68
18
p. 2-4]. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to seek discovery of any non-
19
privileged matter that is relevant to his claims and proportional to the needs of the case.
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The discovery may include information that is not admissible. Id.
21
Several mechanisms exist for a party to request discovery from other parties. See
22
e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (Depositions by Oral Examination)1; Rule 31 (Depositions by
23
24
1
25
26
27
28
If plaintiff seeks to conduct an oral deposition pursuant to Rule 30, he will be responsible for
arranging for the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United
States, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a), and a means of recording the testimony either by
sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3). Plaintiff will also
be responsible for these and any other costs related to any deposition(s) he takes. See Tedder v.
Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-212 (9th Cir. 1989). These fees are not waived based on plaintiff’s in
forma pauperis status.
3
14CV2404-JLS(KSC)
1
Written Questions); Rule 33 (Interrogatories to Parties); Rule 34 (Requests for Production
2
of Documents). Plaintiff does not appear to have formally requested the discovery he seeks
3
pursuant to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His Motion to Compel this
4
information is, therefore, DENIED.
5
III.
6
7
8
9
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2019
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
14CV2404-JLS(KSC)
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?