Alonso v. San Diego County Sheriff Department

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Alonso v. San Diego County Sheriff Department

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || Christopher K. Alonso, Case No.: 3:22-cv-97-RSH-LR 12 ORDER: 13 Plaintiff, 14 1. DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT V. COUNSEL, AND 13 san Diego County Sheriff Department, 16 2. DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS Defendant. [ECF No. 9] 19 Plaintiff's Complaint, filed on January 24, 2022, alleges that Defendant San Diego * County Sheriff's Department violated his civil rights in connection with an incident on February 20, 2021, in which Plaintiff was pulled over for a purported traffic violation and then arrested for possession of a loaded weapon. ECF No. 1. Along with the Complaint, 23 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion to 28 appoint counsel. ECF Nos. 2, 3. On May 6, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice 2 Plaintiff's IFP Motion, based on unexplained discrepancies within his IFP application that 26 rendered the application incomplete and not credible. ECF No. 5. The Court subsequently denied Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot. Jd.

1 On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff paid the $402 filing fee. ECF No. 6. On August 26, 2022, 2 ||he filed a new motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 9. The Motion described his past 3 || attempts to obtain counsel, including: (1) an attempt in 2020 (before the incident alleged 4 ||in the Complaint) to obtain help from the “California Bar Association” by telephone, for 5 |) which there was “no follow up”; and (2) an attempt to engage an attorney named “Ruiz” 6 ||in February 2021, whom Plaintiff did not engage because of a “charge for criminal aspect” 7 |) and because the attorney “couldn’t guarantee [a] civil win.” /d. Plaintiff states that he needs 8 |) appointed counsel because he is not employed, and because he “did not find anyone 9 || knowledgeable with my case statu[t]es violations allegations.” Id. 10 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. 11 || Servs.,

452 U.S. 18, 25

(1981); Palmer v. Valdez,

560 F.3d 965, 970

(9th Cir. 2009). The 12 || IFP statute provides that a court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable 13 || to afford counsel.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(1). However, this discretion is exercised only under 14 ||‘‘exceptional circumstances.” Palmer,

560 F.3d at 970

. The burden of demonstrating 15 || exceptional circumstances is on the party seeking counsel. Jd. A court must consider “the 16 || likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his 17 ||claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 18 ||

718 F.2d 952, 954

(9th Cir. 1983). 19 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the requisite burden. Additionally, 20 || Plaintiff's Motion does not reflect past good faith efforts to obtain counsel, and the stated 21 |/reasons for not obtaining counsel relate to factors other than Plaintiff's ability to pay. The 22 || Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel at this time. Plaintiff's Motion 23 || [ECF No. 9] is DENIED without prejudice. 24 Additionally, Plaintiff has not filed proof of timely service upon Defendant. Federal 25 of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after 26 || the complaint is filed, the court ... must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 27 || defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows 28 || good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate

1 || period.” 2 Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time to effect service. Nonetheless, the Court 3 || ORDERS that Plaintiff shall have an additional forty-five (45) days after the date of this 4 || Order to properly effectuate service of the Summons and Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to 5 effect service and file proof of service within that time, the Court will dismiss this action 6 || for failure to prosecute. 7 SO ORDERED. ‘ 8 || Dated: October 28, 2022 ehw 7 ‘ Howe 9 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown