Gonzales v. Madden

Opinion

HELIDORO GONZALES, Case No.: 23-cv-2181-AGS-DEB

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

RAYMOND MADDEN, et al., Defendants. [DKT NO. 25]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt No. 25. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a claim filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 9 at 1–2. Plaintiff claims he is “illiterate/Spanish- speaking” and, therefore, appointment of counsel is warranted in the instant action. Dkt. No. 25 at 1 (Pl.’s Mot. to Appoint Counsel.). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). An indigent’s right to appointed counsel exists “only where the litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation.” Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). In “exceptional circumstances,” however, a court may exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). There is currently no basis to support a finding of exceptional circumstances in this case. Plaintiff’s complaint and filings evidence he can effectively articulate his claim (perhaps with assistance) with proper spelling, grammar, and handwriting. See Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.); see also Dkt. No. 2 at 2-4 (Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis); Dkt. No. 10 at 1 (Pl.’s Notice of Intent to Proceed); Dkt. No. 25 at 1. Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint survived the Court’s screening. See Dkt. No. 9 at 4–12 (granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to File Additional Pages, and finding that eight of Plaintiff’s eleven claims survive 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) screening). Although Plaintiff’s complaint survived screening, the record is not sufficiently developed for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and Plaintiff makes no such showing in his Motion. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (holding that “[w]hen determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits. . .’”). “In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). This also applies to motions. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions. . .”). Accordingly, the Court will take Plaintiff’s pro se status into consideration when his filings are reviewed and afford him “the benefit of any doubt.” Jackson, 353 F.3d at 757. \\ \\ \\ l In sum, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances present for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion, therefore, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. _ Date: July 3, 2025 Selon Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge