McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department

N.D. California

McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department

DecidedApril 20, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-01699

StatusUnknown

This text of McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department (McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department) 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

McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 ALLEN D. MCCLOSKEY, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01699-RMI

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 v. APPOINT COUNSEL

11 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S Re: Dkt. No. 9 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel in a civil case. (Dkt. 9). Pursuant 15 to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that the motion to appoint counsel is appropriate for 16 decision without oral argument, and that the matter can be decided on the papers. 17 Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dep't of 18 Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (1981). The court may ask counsel to represent an 19 indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of 20 which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability 21 of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 22 involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. 23 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together 24 before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 25 At this time, the court does not find that any exceptional circumstances exist which would 26 warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. Without passing judgment as 27 to the likelihood of success of Plaintiffs’ claims, the court finds that Plaintiffs have been able to 1 || Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request 2 || for appointment of counsel at this juncture is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 20, 2023 5 6 R . ILLMAN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 ALLEN D. MCCLOSKEY, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01699-RMI

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 v. APPOINT COUNSEL

11 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S Re: Dkt. No. 9 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel in a civil case. (Dkt. 9). Pursuant 15 to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that the motion to appoint counsel is appropriate for 16 decision without oral argument, and that the matter can be decided on the papers. 17 Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dep't of 18 Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (1981). The court may ask counsel to represent an 19 indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of 20 which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability 21 of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 22 involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. 23 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together 24 before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 25 At this time, the court does not find that any exceptional circumstances exist which would 26 warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. Without passing judgment as 27 to the likelihood of success of Plaintiffs’ claims, the court finds that Plaintiffs have been able to 1 || Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request 2 || for appointment of counsel at this juncture is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 20, 2023 5 6 R . ILLMAN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccloskey-v-humboldt-county-sheriffs-department-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack