Williams v. Fisher

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00650
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Case No. 24-cv-0650-RSH-MMP

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. 14

[ECF No. 26] 15 MORALES, et al.,

16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is what the Court construes as Petitioner Tommy Lee Williams’ 19 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 26. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding 20 pro se and in forma pauperis, says he is “asking again for an attorney.” ECF No. 26 at 1. 21 In April 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to appoint 23 counsel. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but his 24 petition was dismissed with leave to amend and his motion for appointment of counsel 25 was denied as moot.1 ECF No. 5. Petitioner then filed an amended petition. ECF No. 7. 26

27 1 Because the motion currently before the Court is Petitioner’s second (arguably third) 28 1 “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 2 Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District courts have 3 discretion, however, to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional 4 circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 5 1915(e)(1). In considering whether to appoint counsel in a civil suit, the court should 6 assess: (1) whether the prisoner is likely to succeed on the merits and (2) whether “the 7 prisoner is unable to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues 8 involved.” Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d 9 at 970). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 10 reaching a decision.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 Petitioner bears the burden of showing exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d 12 at 970. 13 Petitioner has not shown exceptional circumstances. In fact, Petitioner has not 14 presented any circumstances at all. Instead, his motion merely says he is “asking again for 15 an attorney.” ECF No. 26 at 1. Though already denied as moot, the Court nonetheless 16 reviewed Petitioner’s initial motion for appointment of counsel in search of some context. 17 ECF No. 3. Petitioner’s initial motion was not any more insightful—it simply said, “I am 18 asking the courts for counsel on this writ of habeas corpus.” ECF No. 3. Because Petitioner 19 has failed to present the Court with exceptional circumstances, his motion for appointment 20 of counsel should be denied. 21 However, even if Petitioner had provided a persuasive reason for requiring counsel, 22 any such reason would be largely undermined by the current posture of the case. 23 Procedurally, there is very little left to be accomplished. Petitioner has filed his amended 24 petition without counsel, Respondents have responded and lodged the state court record, 25

26 reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. ECF Nos. 3, 7 at 13, 26. However, given 27 Petitioner’s pro se status and the denial of his initial motion for appointment of counsel as moot (without analysis), the Court elects to consider this as an entirely new motion for 28 1 and Petitioner has filed his opposition. ECF Nos. 7, 13, 17–19. It is unclear to the Court 2 how an attorney at this point in the litigation could assist Petitioner. 3 In light of Petitioner’s failure to cite any circumstances for why he should be 4 appointed civil counsel, the Court sees no need to appoint counsel. Nevertheless, the Court 5 has also considered the more traditional exceptional circumstances analysis and concluded 6 Petitioner is not “unable to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal 7 issues involved.” Cano, 739 F.3d at 1218 (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970). 8 The Court does not see this as a complex case. Petitioner challenges his convictions 9 on four facially unpersuasive grounds: (1) “prosecutorial misconduct” on the basis that 10 the prosecutor knew the police “made up” the crime scene for racial reasons and ignored 11 the fact that Petitioner’s victim tried to have him killed in prison, (2) “police misconduct” 12 on the basis that the Escondido Police Department “made up” the crime scene and called 13 him a racial slur, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis that his attorney “should 14 have known what they did” and did not provide Petitioner all of the discovery photos, and 15 (4) Petitioner’s victim and all the other witnesses testified falsely about what happened. 16 ECF No. 7 at 6–9. On its face, the Court does not see anything complex about Petitioner’s 17 allegations. But as previously mentioned, even if there are hidden complexities in his 18 claims, this matter has already been fully briefed without counsel. 19 Given Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and the 20 uncertain utility of counsel at this point in the proceedings, it is not in the interests of justice 21 to appoint Petitioner counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 22 is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 29, 2025 _________________________ 25 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT 26 United States Magistrate Judge

27 28