Briceno v. Williams et al
Filing
42
ORDER Denying Motion for Appointed Counsel (ECF No. 40 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 1/28/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Marcus D. BRICENO,
11
Case No.: 16-cv-1665-JAH-AGS
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTED COUNSEL (ECF No. 40)
Blake WILLIAMS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
For the third time, plaintiff Marcus Briceno seeks appointed counsel. The last two
17
times, he sought counsel because of medical issues that he alleged interfered with his ability
18
to litigate his case. This time, he argues that he is “unlearned” in “the matters of law” and
19
has limited access to the prison’s law library. (ECF No. 40, at 1.)
20
“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions,” Palmer v. Valdez, 560
21
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), and, even under the statutory authority to recruit counsel in
22
civil cases, the Court cannot force attorneys to represent an indigent civil litigant. See
23
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989) (holding that
24
the relevant statute—28 U.S.C. § 1915— “does not authorize the federal courts to make
25
coercive appointments of counsel”). But “a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’
26
appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer,
27
560 F.3d at 970 (citation omitted). “When determining whether exceptional circumstances
28
exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
1
16-cv-1665-JAH-AGS
1
the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
2
involved.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
3
As this case is still in its substantive infancy—so far Briceno has successfully fended
4
off a motion to dismiss based on timeliness—it is unclear what his likelihood of success
5
on the merits may be. But, as already pointed out in both previous orders, Briceno’s
6
excessive force claim is, like most excessive force claims, not particularly complex. See
7
Price v. Kamer, 993 F. Supp. 1295, 1298 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (“With rare exceptions,
8
excessive force cases are simple, rather than complex cases. Excessive force cases almost
9
always involve very few events which happened over a very short time span. There tend to
10
be relatively few witnesses, and the dispositive disputes almost always involve the
11
credibility of witnesses.” (emphasis omitted)). The Court notes that Briceno has been
12
capable of articulating his legal position and conducting legal research; as previously
13
alluded to, he successfully overcame a motion to dismiss his complaint on the grounds of
14
timeliness. (See ECF No. 34.) His filings are well-researched and thoughtful, and so far
15
Briceno has been able to articulate his claims. The motion for appointment of counsel is
16
therefore denied.
17
Dated: January 28, 2019
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16-cv-1665-JAH-AGS
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?