(PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center

E.D. California

(PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center

DecidedMay 20, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-01485

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center ((PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAYLA SUGGETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-01485-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., ECF No. 12 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 12. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, see Rand v. Rowland, 21 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks authority to require an attorney to 22 represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 23 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 24 (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 25 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer 26 counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, 27 “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of 28 1 | the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 2 | involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 I cannot find that the appointment of counsel is warranted here. The allegations in the 4 | complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is likely 5 | to succeed on the merits. 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 7 12, is denied. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ May 20, 2024 Q————. 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON Db UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 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 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAYLA SUGGETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-01485-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., ECF No. 12 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 12. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, see Rand v. Rowland, 21 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks authority to require an attorney to 22 represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 23 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 24 (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 25 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer 26 counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, 27 “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of 28 1 | the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 2 | involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 I cannot find that the appointment of counsel is warranted here. The allegations in the 4 | complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is likely 5 | to succeed on the merits. 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 7 12, is denied. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ May 20, 2024 Q————. 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON Db UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-suggett-v-solano-county-justice-center-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack