Thompson v. Allison

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEKOU KWANE THOMPSON, Case No. 23-cv-05079-HSG

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

10 MARTIN MAGANA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 27 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner currently housed at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a 14 pro se civil rights action, alleging that CTF correctional officials Martin Magana, Oliva Castro, 15 Don Zypel Igacio, A. Pelayo, Oscar Covarrubias, Jo-ann Crews, and Michael Hicks were 16 deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See generally Dkt. 17 Nos. 20, 21. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of 18 counsel. Dkt. No. 27. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s renewed 19 request for appointment of counsel. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff has filed a renewed request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiff 22 argues that appoint of counsel is necessary for the following reasons. Plaintiff is unable to afford 23 counsel. Plaintiff has contacted potential legal counsel, but has received no response. This case is 24 factually complex. Plaintiff has a limited knowledge of the law. Plaintiff only has a high school 25 education. Plaintiff has sued several different correctional officials, some of whom are 26 supervisory officials. Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. The case will require document 27 discovery and deposition. There will be factual disputes and this case will turn on the witnesses’ 1 interview eyewitnesses. A medical expert will be required. Defendants may also present a 2 medical expert, and Plaintiff requires assistance in cross-examining a medical expert. This case 3 requires “considerable” discovery concerning the identity of witnesses, officer reports and 4 statements regarding the incident and any prior history of failure to protect inmates, and Plaintiff’s 5 medical history. Plaintiff’s case is meritorious. See generally Dkt. No. 27. 6 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 7 lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Svcs., 452 U.S. 8 18, 25 (1981). Appointing counsel is within the court’s discretion and is granted only in 9 exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (referring 10 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which was subsequently renumbered to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). A 11 finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s 12 success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in 13 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 14 America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Both of these factors must be viewed together 15 before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. At this stage of the 16 action, it is unclear that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits as there is currently no operative 17 complaint 18 Plaintiff has previously requested appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 13. On October 3, 19 2024, the Court denied the request in a reasoned order for lack of exceptional circumstances. Dkt. 20 No. 15. Plaintiff’s circumstances have not changed since the Court’s prior denial. Plaintiff 21 continues to ably articulate his claims pro se, despite his high school education, his lack of legal 22 knowledge, and the limitations imposed by incarceration. The issues presented – involving 23 deliberate indifference to inmate safety – are not complex. At this stage in the litigation, 24 Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits remains unclear. To the extent that Plaintiff has 25 concerns about his ability to investigate the case, discovery tools such as interrogatories and 26 requests for admissions are equally available to both pro se litigants and attorneys, and may be 27 used to determine the inmates living in the facility where Plaintiff resided at the time the incident 1 regarding other inmate-on-inmate assaults. 2 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's renewed request for appointment of counsel for lack of 3 || exceptional circumstances. Dkt. No. 13. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's renewed request for 6 appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 27. This denial is without prejudice to the Court sua sponte 7 appointing counsel should justice so require. 8 This order terminates Dkt. No. 27. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: 7/9/2025 11 7 Uaupursnd Lh i. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

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