Eduardo Jose Torres v. Patrick Covello, Warden

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01048
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDUARDO JOSE TORRES, Case No.: 25cv1048-LL-LR

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

14 PATRICK COVELLO, Warden, [ECF No. 9] 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pending before the Court is a Motion for Appointment of Counsel by Eduardo Jose 18 Torres (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. ECF No. 9. On June 6, 2025, this 19 Court dismissed Petitioner’s amended petition without prejudice because Petitioner failed 20 to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief and 21 failed to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. ECF No. 8. The Court informed 22 Petitioner that to have his case reopened he must (1) satisfy the filing fee requirement by 23 submitting a properly supported In Forma Pauperis Motion or paying the $5.00 filing fee 24 and (2) file a Second Amended Petition which cures the deficiencies outlined in this Order 25 no later than August 4, 2025. Id. at 5. Petitioner failed to do either, and instead filed the 26 instant Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 9. 27 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and appointment of counsel 28 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted 2 || only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 3 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that 4 || only “exceptional circumstances” support such a discretionary appointment). Exceptional 5 || circumstances exist where there is cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on 6 || the merits and an inability of the pro se litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal 7 ||complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 8 The Court finds that Petitioner is capable of legibly articulating the facts and 9 || circumstances relevant to his claims, which are not exceptionally legally complex. Also, 10 || Petitioner failed to meet the Court-ordered deadline of August 4, 2025 to submit a properly 11 || supported In Forma Pauperis Motion and show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of 12 ||his claims. ECF No. 8. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for 13 || Appointment of Counsel. 14 Although this case is already closed, the Court will allow Petitioner one final 15 || opportunity to file a Second Amended Petition, which cures the deficiencies outlined in the 16 || Court’s June 6, 2025 order. Petitioner is also required to submit a properly supported In 17 || Forma Pauperis Motion or pay the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner must do both of these things 18 || on or before January 26, 2026. If Petitioner fails to do both of these things by the deadline, 19 || this case will remain closed. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: December 2, 2025 NO 22 QF | 3 Honorable Linda Lopez 54 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28