Sanchez v. Freitas

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JULIO CESAR SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, Case No. 22-cv-07144-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RENEWED REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 9 v. COUNSEL

10 D. FREITAS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 31 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Julio Cesar Sanchez-Martinez, a pre-trial detainee housed at Santa Cruz Main Jail, 14 has filed this pro se action against certain Santa Cruz County Jail (“SCCJ”) correctional officials. 15 Plaintiff has filed a renewed request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff again 16 argues that the Court should appoint him counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; he has 17 been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; his imprisonment greatly limits his ability to 18 litigate; and trial and discovery will likely involve conflicting testimony such that counsel would 19 better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Compare Dkt. No. 31 at 20 1-2 with Dkt. No. 25 at 5-6. In addition, Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is necessary 21 because the issues involved in this case are complex because the case involves several different 22 aspects and elements of jail conditions; the issues involved in the case will require significant 23 research and investigation; he lacks legal training; he is confined in administrative segregation 24 with limited access to legal materials and with limited ability to investigate the facts; this case is 25 legally complex because of the large number of defendants; he does not know how to proceed with 26 discovery and a jury will require greater skills that he can develop prior to trial; his allegations, if 27 proven, would clearly establish a constitutional violation; the case will require document 1 Plaintiff has a “hard time” with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See generally Dkt. No. 31. 2 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 3 || lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 4 18, 25 (1981). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood 5 of the plaintiff's success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiffs ability to articulate his 6 || claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections 7 Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Both of these factors must be viewed 8 together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 9 The Court denied Plaintiffs prior request for appointment of counsel for failure to 10 demonstrate exceptional circumstances, finding that the likelihood of Plaintiff's success on the 11 merits is unclear at this point and that Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims pro se and file 12 || numerous pleadings, as well as other actions, despite the limitations posed by his incarceration. 5 13 || Dkt. No. 29 at 11-12. Plaintiff's renewed motion has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. 14 || At this point in the litigation, the likelihood of Plaintiff's success on the merits is unclear. And, 3 15 thus far, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims pro se and file numerous pleadings, as well 16 as other actions, despite the limitations he describes in his renewed request for appointment of 3 17 || counsel. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's renewed request for appointment of counsel for failure to 18 demonstrate exceptional circumstances without prejudice to the Court sua sponte appointing 19 counsel in the future should the circumstances so require. Dkt. No. 31. 20 This order terminates Dkt. No. 31. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: 3/12/2024 23 Adaspural 5 |p. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28