explaining Bounds v. Smith, 26 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases
How later courts described this case
- explaining Bounds v. Smith, 26 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DANIEL CISNEROS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01601-HBK (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
13 v. COUNSEL
14 JUAN MUNIZ, et al., (Doc. No. 24)
15 Defendants.
16
17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 24).
18 Plaintiff, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his Second Amended Complaint filed September 11,
19 2023. (Doc. No. 13). The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in this action in forma
20 pauperis on January 23, 2023 and permitted Plaintiff to proceed on claims of Eighth Amendment
21 deliberate medical indifference, state law malpractice, state law negligent supervision, and state
22 law failure to summon medical care. (Doc. Nos. 8, 22). The Court denied Plaintiff’s prior
23 motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. Nos. 7, 9).
24 As previously advised, the United States Constitution does not require appointment of
25 counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith,
26 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C.
27 § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence,
28 prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to
1 appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519
2 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel
3 in civil cases) (other citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are
4 granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The court may consider many factors
5 to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not
6 limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the
7 plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
8 involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part
9 on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
10 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v.
11 Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff requests appointment of
12 counsel because he was unsuccessful in obtaining counsel on his own. (Doc. No. 24 at 1-2).
13 Plaintiff contacted ten different attorneys, but none of those contacted were able to take Plaintiff’s
14 case. (Id.). Plaintiff’s inability to find counsel “is not a proper factor for the Court to consider in
15 determining whether to request counsel.” Howard v. Hedgpeth, 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D.
16 Cal. Apr. 20, 2010).
17 Plaintiff further asserts that he requires the assistance of counsel because his complaint
18 involves complex medical issues, legal issues such as qualified immunity, and possible expert
19 testimony, and trial will involve voluminous medical records and conflicting testimony. (Doc.
20 No. 24 at 7). Prison litigation often involves medical claims and issues of qualified immunity;
21 thus, Plaintiff’s case does not present extraordinary circumstances. Contrary to Plaintiff’s
22 assertion, the court does not find the issues are “so complex that due process violations will occur
23 absent the presence of counsel.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428–29 (9th Cir. 1993). While
24 the assistance of counsel during trial may be helpful, the “relevant consideration is not one of
25 convenience” but rather exceptionalness. Howard v. Hedgpeth, 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D.
26 Cal. Apr. 20, 2010).
27 Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel because his “lack of legal experience and
28 [the] complex discovery rules . . . put[] [him] at a disadvantage . . .” (Doc. No. 24 at 7).
1 | However, “[c]ircumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and
2 | limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for
3 | voluntary assistance of counsel.” Baker v. Macomber, 2020 WL 1182495, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
4 | 12,2020). Finally, Plaintiff has capably filed motions and a second amended complaint that
5 | survived screening. Plaintiff has thus not shown exceptional circumstances that warrant
6 || appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.
7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
8 Plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED.
9
| Dated: _ May 6, 2024 Mle fareh Zack
11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28