United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2019

Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department

Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided August 30, 2019
Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0662 AWI JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE ) (Doc. 17) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 17 On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17) Plaintiff “request[s] that counsel be appointed in this matter so that [his] interest may be protected by the professional assistance required.” (Id. at 1) 20 Importantly, there is no constitutional right to counsel in most civil cases, but the Court may request an attorney to represent indigent persons. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot require representation of a plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court has discretion to request the voluntary assistance of counsel.

25 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997).

26 To determine whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated he is able to intelligibly state his position, respond to the Court’s orders, and meet deadlines set by the Court. In addition, this the legal issues presented are not complex. Finally, at this early stage in the proceeding, the Court is unable to make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this time.

6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: August 30, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.