Warsaw v. Captain J. Garcia

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01262
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW, Case No.: 25-cv-1262-JO-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT 14 CAPTAIN J. GARCIA, CDCR A.W PREJUDICE - A MAY AND STAFF A. PEREZ, 15 Defendants. [Dkt. No. 6] 16

17 18 Plaintiff Christopher D. Warsaw, an inmate currently incarcerated at Richard 19 J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), is proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docket. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 21 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. No. 6 (“Mot.”). For the reasons set forth 22 below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in San Diego Superior 25 Court, North County Division. Dkt. No. 1-3 at 4-9. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges 26 that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him access to the 27 courts in an active criminal proceeding and by interfering with evidence. Id. 28 On May 16, 2025, Defendants removed Plaintiff’s case to this Court. Dkt. 1 No. 1. 2 On May 29, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint 3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Dkt. No. 2. 4 On June 2, 2025, the Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule 5 requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 6 2] by July 14, 2025, and Defendants to file any reply by July 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 7 3. 8 On June 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Mot. Plaintiff argues that 9 appointing counsel is appropriate here because “[t]he Defendants acted under 10 color of law/violated Due Process etc.” and exceptional circumstances exist due to 11 the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved in this matter. Mot. at 1. 12 DISCUSSION 13 There is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings. Palmer v. Valdez, 14 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). However, District Courts have discretion to 15 “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 16 “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 17 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “That a pro se 18 litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel is not the test.” Okler 19 v. MCC IMU Prison, No. 3:18-cv-05458-RJB-TLF, 2019 WL 461143, at *1 (W.D. 20 Wash. Feb. 5, 2019). Instead, the Court “must determine whether . . . there is a 21 likelihood of success on the merits” and whether “the prisoner is unable to 22 articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Cano 23 v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014). Neither factor is “dispositive” but 24 “must be considered cumulatively.” Id. 25 A. Likelihood of Success 26 The Court first considers whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits 27 of his claim. Given the early stage of the proceedings, there is no basis upon which 28 the Court can predict Plaintiff’s success at trial. See Campos v. K.U.S.I. News 1 Media, No. 3:19-cv-01455-BAS-AGS, 2019 WL 4674290, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2 2019) (denying prisoner’s motion to appoint counsel where it “[was] simply too 3 soon to tell whether he will be likely to succeed on the merits of any potential 4 constitutional claim”). The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs against the 5 appointment of counsel. 6 B. Plaintiff’s Ability to Pursue His Claims 7 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must 8 consider . . . the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 9 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Plaintiff does 10 not argue that he is unable to effectively articulate his claims. Mot. Instead, 11 Plaintiff argues that conducting depositions and discovery, and calling witnesses 12 at trial, some of whom are inmates, will be a very complex process that is likely to 13 be actively impeded by prison officials due to the status of Defendants. Id. at 2-3. 14 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the mechanisms for discovery under 15 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including a motion to compel a person to 16 respond to discovery, are available to Plaintiff despite his incarceration. The Court 17 also reminds Plaintiff – and Defendants – that Defendants’ compliance with the 18 Federal Rules, and their good faith and cooperation in the discovery process, are 19 expected. If Plaintiff is unable to resolve any discovery matter with Defendants or 20 other responding parties after a thorough meet and confer, he may then seek the 21 Court’s assistance. Additionally, Plaintiff’s need to conduct discovery and examine 22 witnesses does not constitute exceptional circumstances. These tasks are 23 common among all participants in civil litigation and not unique to Plaintiff. See 24 Williams v. Lozano, No. 1:15-cv-01250-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 558765, at *1 (E.D. 25 Cal. Jan. 25, 2018) (“Even if it is assumed that [p]laintiff is not well versed in the 26 law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to 27 relief, his case is not exceptional.”). 28 /// 1 ORDER 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his 3 ||burden to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 counsel. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may renew his request if his situation changes 6 such that he can make the necessary showing that he is both likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, and unable to competently articulate those claims. Cano, 8 || 739 F.3d at 1219. 9 IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 ||Dated: June 20, 2025 ait 12 Tb lhe Hon. David D.Leshner SCS 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28