Carranza v. Koehn

Opinion

3 JESS ELIJIO CARRANZA, ) ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-01586-GMN-DJA 5 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, ) vs. ) ORDER 6 ) ) 8 Defendant/Respondent. )

9 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 17), filed 11 by Plaintiffs/Petitioners Jess Elijio Carranza and Jimmy Carter Kim (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). 12 Defendant/Respondent Warden Brian Koehn (“Defendant”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 23), 13 and Plaintiffs filed a Reply, (ECF No. 26). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 14 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 15 This case arises from Plaintiffs’ allegations that their constitutional rights have been 16 violated as a result of inadequate measures to protect them from contracting COVID-19 while 17 being held in federal pretrial detention at Nevada Southern Detention Center (“NSDC”). (See 18 generally Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs originally brought a petition 19 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief 20 claims. (Id.). The Court dismissed the habeas petition, and the case now proceeds as a civil- 21 rights action under the Court’s inherent equitable powers. (See generally Order, ECF No. 24). 22 Plaintiffs are both represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (“FPD”) for their 23 underlying criminal cases, and the FPD also submitted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 24 on Plaintiffs’ behalf. (Mot. Appointment Counsel (“Mot.”), 1:17–22, ECF No. 17). Plaintiffs 25 argue that the FPD’s appointment extends to the present civil case as an ancillary matter and 1 that “the FPD is properly representing them” in this civil action. (Id. 1:20–22). Alternatively, if 2 this is not an ancillary matter, Plaintiffs claim that the FPD’s appointment is still proper under 3 the exceptional circumstances of the case. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 4 F.3d 1101, 1104 (9th Cir. 2004) (allowing court appointment of an attorney to represent a 5 plaintiff in a civil action when there are exceptional circumstances); (Reply 4:17–5:1, ECF No. 6 26). Defendant counters that “this proceeding is not ‘ancillary’” and “the ‘interests of justice’ 7 do not require the appointment of counsel.” (Resp. 1:14–17, ECF No. 23). 8 In district courts, the appointment of counsel for persons financially unable to obtain 9 representation in criminal cases is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. “A person for whom 10 counsel is appointed shall be represented at every stage of the proceedings from his initial 11 appearance before the United States magistrate judge or the court through appeal, including 12 ancillary matters appropriate to the proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). Ancillary matters 13 include proceedings sufficiently related to the underlying criminal case. See United States v. 14 Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs argue that the current proceeding is 15 an ancillary matter because “proceedings to protect [constitutional rights] are ‘sufficiently 16 related’ to [Plaintiffs’] underlying [criminal] cases and ‘appropriate’ to the FPD’s 17 appointment.” (Reply 4:6–9). Therefore, Plaintiffs conclude that the FPD’s appointment to 18 their criminal cases extends to the present civil case. (Reply 1:20–22). 19 Further, the existence of exceptional circumstances entails an analysis of the “likelihood 20 of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate 21 his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1104 22 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiffs argue that the

23 circumstances of their case are exceptional because, based on the filings, it is likely to succeed 24 on the merits and involves complex constitutional issues that Plaintiffs could not litigate on 25 their own. (Reply 5:9–6:12). The Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments persuasive and determines 1 that the present case is an ancillary matter proceeding under exceptional circumstances. 2 Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of 4 Counsel, (ECF No. 17), is GRANTED. 5 DATED this _2_6___ day of October, 2020. 6 7 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 8 United States District Court 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25