Castillo v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTURO MARCELINO CASTILLO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01017-BTM-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. APPOINT COUNSEL 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. [ECF NO. 3] 16 17 18 On October 2, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Arturo Castillo filed a letter notifying the 19 Court of his new address. (ECF No. 3 at 1 (“Letter”).) In the Letter, Plaintiff also asks: 20 “How soon will I be given an attorney or must I search for one on my own.” (Id.) The 21 Court construes Plaintiff’s Letter as a Motion to Appoint Counsel. 22 The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless 23 an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. 24 Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. 26 However, this discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” 1 || Terrell vy. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional 2 || circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and 3 || the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 4 || legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed 5 together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 6 (9th Cir. 1986)). 7 The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of 8 ||justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. 9 || Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On October 11, 2024, the 10 || Court dismissed Plaintiff's Bivens claim against the Doe Defendants, but found that his 11 FTCA claim survived screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b), and 12 || directed the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons on Defendant 13 || United States of America. (ECF No. 4, at 6, 8-9.) No other substantive action has yet to 14 || take place in this case. The Court therefore cannot yet rule on the merits of Plaintiff's 15 |}claims. Additionally, that Plaintiff's FTCA claim survived screening pursuant to 28 16 || U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) indicates that at this stage in the proceedings Plaintiff 17 articulate his claims pro se. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice 18 || Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ||Dated: October 21, 2024 Bang Tid. Jdths a 22 Honofable Barry Ted Moskowi 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27