1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COREY LAVELLE GREEN, Case No.: 22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP CDCR #AS-1014, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS Plaintiff, 13 TO APPOINT PRO BONO vs. COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 14

(e)(1) AND

15 S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596 M. LIZARRAGA, et al.,

16 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 91, 93] 17 18 19 Plaintiff Corey Lavelle Green, a prisoner proceeding without counsel, first initiated 20 this civil action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act,

, in August 2022. (ECF 21 No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants Lizarraga, Galindo, and Montejano violated his Eighth 22 Amendment rights during a cell extraction at Centinela State Prison in December 2020. 23 (Id. at 1‒3.) 24 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions seeking appointment of 26 counsel. (ECF Nos. 91, 93.) On October 21, 2025, the Court adopted United States 27 Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit’s Report and Recommendation to grant in part and 28 deny in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 103.) During an 1 October 24, 2025 telephonic pretrial conference, the Court informed Plaintiff and counsel 2 for Defendants that while it had referred his case to its Pro Bono Panel for potential 3 representation pursuant to S.D. Cal. General Order 596, it had yet to secure an available 4 volunteer. Plaintiff was therefore advised he should be prepared to proceed pro se, and the 5 Court issued a scheduling Order setting a jury trial to commence on January 12, 2026, at 6 9:00 AM, in Courtroom 13A. (ECF No. 106.) On November 3, 2026, however, a member 7 of the Court’s Pro Bono Panel indicated its willingness to accept a pro bono appointment 8 on Plaintiff’s behalf. 9 II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 10 There is no right to counsel in a civil action, but a court may under “exceptional 11 circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent any person 12 unable to afford counsel.”

(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez,

, 970 13 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits as 14 well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 15 of the legal issues involved.’”

(quoting Weygandt v. Look,

(9th Cir. 16 1983)). 17 Plaintiff’s prior motion requesting the appointment of counsel in this case was 18 denied without prejudice because like most litigants, he failed to meet the exceptional 19 circumstances requirement at the pre-discovery and pre-summary judgment stages of his 20 case. (ECF No. 26 ) See also Hearn v. RJD Warden, No. 22-CV-255-TWR-DDL, 2022

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2022) (when a pro se plaintiff’s allegations “remain 22 unproven … [a]t th[e] early stage of the proceedings, there is no basis upon which the Court 23 can predict [his] success at trial.”); Campos v. K.U.S.I. News Media, No. 3:19-cv-01455- 24 BAS-AGS,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019) (denying prisoner’s motion 25 to appoint counsel where it “[was] simply too soon to tell whether he will be likely to 26 succeed on the merits of any potential constitutional claim”).) 27 Plaintiff has since demonstrated both an ability to articulate his claims and to survive 28 summary judgment while proceeding without the assistance of trained counsel, but the 1 likelihood of his success on the merits increased as a result of the Court’s October 21, 2025 2 summary judgment ruling. Cf. Garcia v. Smith,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2012) 3 (finding it “too early to determine the likelihood of success on the merits” when it was “not 4 certain whether plaintiff’s complaint would survive [defendant’s pending motion for] 5 summary judgment.”). 6 For these reasons, on October 21, 2025, and in light of the impending trial, the Court 7 elected to exercise its discretion pursuant to

(e)(1) and its Plan for the 8 Representation of Pro se Litigants in Civil Cases as adopted by S.D. Cal. General Order 9 596. The Pro Bono Plan specifically provides for appointment of pro bono counsel “as a 10 matter of course for purposes of trial in each prisoner civil rights case where summary 11 judgment has been denied.” See S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. Therefore, because the ends 12 of justice would be served by the appointment of pro bono counsel under the circumstances, 13 and an available Pro Bono Panel volunteer attorney has since graciously agreed to represent 14 Plaintiff pro bono during the course of all further proceedings held before this Court in this 15 case, the Court now grants Plaintiff’s motions requesting the appointment of counsel 16 pursuant to S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. (ECF Nos. 91, 93.) 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 91, 19 93) and APPOINTS Francis DeGiacco, SBN 265625, of Harlan Hillier DiGiacco LLP, 20 701 Island Avenue, Suite 201, San Diego, California, 92101-7143, as Pro Bono Counsel 21 for Plaintiff Corey Lavelle Green. 22 Pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3.f.2, Pro Bono Counsel must file, within fourteen 23 (14) days of this Order, if possible, a formal written Notice of Substitution of Attorney 24 signed by both Plaintiff and his newly appointed counsel. This Notice of Substitution will 25 be considered approved by the Court upon filing, and Pro Bono Counsel will thereafter be 26 considered attorney of record for Plaintiff for all purposes during further proceedings 27 28 1 || before this Court, in this matter only, and at the Court’s specific request. See S.D. Cal. 2 CivLR 83.3.f.1, 2.! 3 Due to the anticipated substitution of counsel, the current trial date and all related 4 || hearings or deadlines are hereby VACATED. 5 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward Mr. DiGiacco a copy 6 || of this Order upon entry in CM/ECF to [email protected] and to also serve him with a 7 ||copy via U.S. Mail at the address listed above upon filing. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3.f.2. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: November 4, 2025 nM. 10 Honorable Dana M. Sabraw 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |!1 Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court’s Pro Bono Panel is a precious and limited resource. The fact that 25 the Court has found this case suitable for appointment at this stage of the proceedings, and has been able to locate an available volunteer attorney does not entitle him to the appointment of counsel in this or any 26 || other case. Nor does it permit him an attorney of his choosing, or guarantee any subsequent Pro Bono Panel referral or appointment. See Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp (In re Hedges),

, 1363 27 || (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation omitted); United States ex rel Gardner v. Madden,

(9th Cir. 1965) (noting that the appointment of counsel 28 || in a civil case “is a privilege and not a right.”).