Briceno v. Williams et al
Filing
27
ORDER denying 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 5/15/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCUS D. BRICENO,
11
Case No.: 16cv1665-JAH-MDD
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
BLAKE WILLIAMS, San Diego Police
14
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF NO. 26]
Officer, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Marcus Briceno again seeks appointment of counsel, but this time attached
18
several medical records which indicate that he suffers from back and leg pain and has a
19
recommendation for additional surgery pending. Briceno argues that these records make it
20
clear that he is in too much pain to successfully litigate his excessive force case, and
21
therefore requests that the Court appoint him counsel.
22
“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions,” Palmer v. Valdez, 560
23
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), and, even under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (the statutory grant
24
of authority to recruit counsel in civil cases), the Court cannot force counsel to represent
25
an indigent civil litigant. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S.
26
296, 310 (1989) (holding that § 1915 “does not authorize the federal courts to make
27
coercive appointments of counsel”). But, “a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’
28
appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer,
1
16cv1665-JAH-MDD
1
560 F.3d at 970 (citation omitted). “When determining whether exceptional circumstances
2
exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
3
the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
4
involved.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
5
Briceno has not shown exceptional circumstances. The likelihood of success on the
6
merits does not appear to be high―the complaint and pending motion to dismiss suggest
7
that his claim is likely untimely unless Briceno can suggest a basis for some form of tolling.
8
Moreover, Briceno’s excessive force claim is, like most excessive force claims, not
9
particularly complex. See Price v. Kamer, 993 F. Supp. 1295, 1298 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (“With
10
rare exceptions, excessive force cases are simple, rather than complex cases. Excessive
11
force cases almost always involve very few events which happened over a very short time
12
span. There tend to be relatively few witnesses, and the dispositive disputes almost always
13
involve the credibility of witnesses.” (emphasis omitted)). Finally, although the Court does
14
not discredit or seek to minimize the pain Briceno is suffering, nothing in the attached
15
records suggest his condition is so severe as to prevent him from responding to the pending
16
motion to dismiss.
17
Although the Court denies the request for recruited counsel at this time, it does so
18
without prejudice. Should Briceno prevail over the pending motion to dismiss, the calculus
19
may change and justify Briceno seeking counsel again at that time.
20
Dated: May 15, 2018
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv1665-JAH-MDD
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?