Siguenza v. CDCR

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-06006
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARLON EDGARDO SIGUENZA, Case No. 23-cv-06006-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 21 10 CDCR, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a pro se action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 15 request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. Dkt. No. 21. 16 DISCUSSION 17 On June 20, 2025, the Court found that the operative complaint stated a cognizable First 18 Amendment retaliation claim and a cognizable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress 19 against CTF correctional official Mora. Dkt. No. 19. On June 23, 2025, defendant Mora filed a 20 waiver of reply in lieu of an answer, as allowed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). Dkt. No. 20; see also 21 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1) (defendants in Section 1983 suits brought by prisoners may file waiver of 22 reply in lieu of answer). 23 Plaintiff has requested that the Court appoint him counsel to assist him in preparing for 24 trial and so that he may effectively conduct discovery, including obtaining the transcripts for the 25 deposition conducted of defendant Mora in the case, Daniel v. Bess. Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff reports 26 that he served discovery requests on defendant Mora on June 29, 2025. Id. 27 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 1 18, 25 (1981). A court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 2 || counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointing counsel is within the court’s discretion and 1s 3 || granted only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn yv. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 4 1986) (referring to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which was subsequently renumbered to 28 U.S.C. □ 5 1915(e)(1)). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of 6 || the plaintiff's success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff's ability to articulate his 7 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections 8 Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Both of these factors must be viewed 9 together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 10 Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. The likelihood of Plaintiffs 11 success on the merits is unclear at this early stage of litigation and Plaintiff has thus far ably 12 || litigated this action. Plaintiff's ability to obtain deposition transcripts from another case does not 13 depend on representation by counsel. 14 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional 3 15 circumstances without prejudice to the Court sua sponte appointing counsel in the future should a 16 || the circumstances so require. CONCLUSION 18 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional 19 circumstances without prejudice to the Court sua sponte appointing counsel in the future should 20 || the circumstances so require. Dkt. No. 21. 21 This order terminates Dkt. No. 21. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: 7/29/2025 24 Alper 3 Sb) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28