Hartley v. Bright

N.D. California

Hartley v. Bright

DecidedJuly 21, 2023

Docket5:23-cv-00767

StatusUnknown

This text of Hartley v. Bright (Hartley v. Bright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartley v. Bright, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGER ANDREW HARTLEY, Case No. 23-cv-00767 BLF (PR) 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v.

14 D. BRIGHT, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docket No. 3) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison 20 (“SVSP”), where he is currently confined, and the Director of the California Correctional 21 Health Care Services (“CCHCS”). Dkt. No. 2-3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for 22 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 2, such that the full filing fee is currently due 23 by July 28, 2023. Dkt. No. 5. 24 Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel based on his 25 “learning and communication disability” due to dyslexia. Dkt. No. 3. There is no 26 constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his 27 physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 1 || right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 2 || 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an 3 || indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is 4 || granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th 5 || Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff’s allegation that dyslexia constitutes a disability and warrants 6 || appointment of counsel is not persuasive. The Court notes that the motion is clearly 7 || written and well presented, which does not indicate that Plaintiff’s dyslexia has hindered 8 || his ability to actively litigate this matter. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED for lack of 9 || exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 10 || 1103 (th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 11 || 1015, 1017 (th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 12 This order terminates Docket No. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED. |) Dated: __July 21, 2023 Acunfaccncan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 15 United States District Judge 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying Mot. for Appt. of Counsel PRO-SE\BLF\CR.23\00767Hartley_atty 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGER ANDREW HARTLEY, Case No. 23-cv-00767 BLF (PR) 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v.

14 D. BRIGHT, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docket No. 3) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison 20 (“SVSP”), where he is currently confined, and the Director of the California Correctional 21 Health Care Services (“CCHCS”). Dkt. No. 2-3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for 22 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 2, such that the full filing fee is currently due 23 by July 28, 2023. Dkt. No. 5. 24 Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel based on his 25 “learning and communication disability” due to dyslexia. Dkt. No. 3. There is no 26 constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his 27 physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 1 || right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 2 || 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an 3 || indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is 4 || granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th 5 || Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff’s allegation that dyslexia constitutes a disability and warrants 6 || appointment of counsel is not persuasive. The Court notes that the motion is clearly 7 || written and well presented, which does not indicate that Plaintiff’s dyslexia has hindered 8 || his ability to actively litigate this matter. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED for lack of 9 || exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 10 || 1103 (th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 11 || 1015, 1017 (th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 12 This order terminates Docket No. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED. |) Dated: __July 21, 2023 Acunfaccncan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 15 United States District Judge 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying Mot. for Appt. of Counsel PRO-SE\BLF\CR.23\00767Hartley_atty 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hartley v. Bright, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-bright-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack