Bolden v. Allison

Opinion

Case No. 22-cv-02059-PJH Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., COUNSEL Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 11

Plaintiff’s pro se civil rights case alleges that Defendants were involved in the decision to transfer over 100 prisoners, some of whom were infected with COVID-19, from the California Institute for Men (CIM) to San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) around May 26, 2020, resulting in a COVID-19 outbreak at SQSP. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 11). There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are at an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. This does not mean, however, that the Court will not consider appointment of counsel at a later juncture in the proceedings. This Order terminates Docket No. 11. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2022 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge