Williams v. Rucker
This text of Williams v. Rucker (Williams v. Rucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY L. WILLIAMS, Case No.: 19CV468 LAB (BGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
14 RUCKER, Correctional Officer, et al., [ECF 19] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF 19.) Plaintiff seeks 18 appointment of counsel for the following reasons: (1) cannot afford to hire a lawyer; (2) 19 his incarceration will limit his ability to litigate this case that he believes will involve 20 substantial investigation and discovery; (3) the issues in the case are complex for someone, 21 like Plaintiff, that has not previously litigated a case; (4) trial will involve conflicting 22 testimony, and (5) Plaintiff has been unable to obtain counsel despite contacting a civil 23 rights attorney. (Id.) 24 “[T]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims.” 25 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 26 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil 27 actions”) and Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (“There is no 28 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action”) withdrawn only as to notice 1 by Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). “However, a court 2 may, under ‘exceptional circumstances,’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 960 (citing Agyeman v. Corrs. 4 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). “When determining whether 5 ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the 6 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 8 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be 9 viewed together.” Id. (citing Wilbron v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 10 1986)). 11 Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of 12 counsel. Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to articulate his claims and this case is not 13 particularly complex. Plaintiff’s Complaint described the factual basis for his claims 14 sufficiently to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 15 1915A(b). (See ECF 6 at 3-6.) Additionally, there is nothing particularly complex about 16 this case or unique about the the limitations Plaintiff faces based on his incarceration that 17 would warrant appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. See Wilbron, 789 18 F.2d at 1331 (noting that, “[i]f all that was required to establish successfully the complexity 19 of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, 20 practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). Plaintiff’s likelihood of 21 success on the merits also does not warrant appointment of counsel at this time. Although 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint has survived screening based on the facts alleged, those allegations 23 present only one view of the case and it is not at all clear Plaintiff’s claims could survive 24 summary judgement. See Garcia v. Smith, No. 10-cv-1187 AJB (RBB), 2012 WL 25 2499003, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (denying appointment of counsel when it was too 26 early to determine whether any of plaintiff’s claims would survive a motion for summary 27 judgment) 28 1 Viewing the two factors together, Plaintiff has not established exceptional 2 ||circumstances justify the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for 3 || appointment of counsel is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 17, 2019 2 p / / 6 on. Bernard G. Skomal 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams v. Rucker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-rucker-casd-2019.