Sweeney v. Carringer

N.D. California

Sweeney v. Carringer

DecidedMay 12, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-03148

StatusUnknown

This text of Sweeney v. Carringer (Sweeney v. Carringer) 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

Sweeney v. Carringer, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN DONNELLY SWEENEY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03148-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 CHRISTINE CARRINGER, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 5, 6 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court are Plaintiffs John Donnelly Sweeney’s and Jennifer Frost’s motions for 14 appointment of pro bono counsel, ECF No. 6, and motion for stay, ECF No. 5. The Court will 15 deny both motions. 16 I. Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel 17 Plaintiffs move for appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), 18 arguing “[a]ppointment of counsel is warranted due to Plaintiffs’ indigence, the complexity of this 19 decade-long conspiracy involving multiple jurisdictions and constitutional violations, and 20 exceptional circumstances, including repeated denials of legal representation by Defendant Judge 21 Christine Carringer since August 2022.” ECF No. 6 at 2. 22 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. However, a court may under 23 ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (affirming 25 district court’s decision to deny appointment of counsel, including at trial, to pro se prisoner 26 bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ motion and does 27 not find exceptional circumstances here. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion. 1 II. Motion for Stay 2 Plaintiffs separately move to stay five lawsuits in which they have been named as 3 defendants: four state-court lawsuits in California Superior Court, Solano County, and one federal 4 lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. ECF No. 5 at 2. The 5 || Court sua sponte stays consideration of the motion to stay until Defendants have appeared in this 6 action. Plaintiffs are directed to meet and confer with Defendants regarding an appropriate 7 || briefing schedule and include the results of those discussions in their July 22, 2025 case 8 || management statement. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: May 12, 2025 11 JON S. TIGA 12 United States District Judge

= 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 7 JOHN DONNELLY SWEENEY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03148-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR STAY 10 CHRISTINE CARRINGER, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 5, 6 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court are Plaintiffs John Donnelly Sweeney’s and Jennifer Frost’s motions for 14 appointment of pro bono counsel, ECF No. 6, and motion for stay, ECF No. 5. The Court will 15 deny both motions. 16 I. Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel 17 Plaintiffs move for appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), 18 arguing “[a]ppointment of counsel is warranted due to Plaintiffs’ indigence, the complexity of this 19 decade-long conspiracy involving multiple jurisdictions and constitutional violations, and 20 exceptional circumstances, including repeated denials of legal representation by Defendant Judge 21 Christine Carringer since August 2022.” ECF No. 6 at 2. 22 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. However, a court may under 23 ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (affirming 25 district court’s decision to deny appointment of counsel, including at trial, to pro se prisoner 26 bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ motion and does 27 not find exceptional circumstances here. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion. 1 II. Motion for Stay 2 Plaintiffs separately move to stay five lawsuits in which they have been named as 3 defendants: four state-court lawsuits in California Superior Court, Solano County, and one federal 4 lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. ECF No. 5 at 2. The 5 || Court sua sponte stays consideration of the motion to stay until Defendants have appeared in this 6 action. Plaintiffs are directed to meet and confer with Defendants regarding an appropriate 7 || briefing schedule and include the results of those discussions in their July 22, 2025 case 8 || management statement. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: May 12, 2025 11 JON S. TIGA 12 United States District Judge

= 17

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sweeney v. Carringer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-carringer-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack