Chapman v. San Mateo County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCEL E. CHAPMAN, Case No. 21-cv-09038-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC; DENYING 9 v. REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 10 SAN MATEO COUNTY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 29 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Maple Correctional Facility in Redwood City, California, has 14 filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Defendant’s motion 15 for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 38. 16 This order addresses Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his opposition, Dkt. No. 28, 17 and his request for appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 29. 18 The Court GRANTS nunc pro tunc Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his 19 opposition, Dkt. No. 28, and deems Plaintiff’s opposition, Dkt. No. 30, timely filed. 20 Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel, arguing that counsel is necessary because 21 he is unable to afford counsel; his imprisonment great limits his ability to litigate; the issues 22 involved are complex and will require significant research and investigation; Plaintiff has limited 23 access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law; a trial in this case will likely involve 24 conflicting testimony and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross- 25 examine witnesses; and Plaintiff has made repeated attempted to retain an attorney but has been 26 unsuccessful. Dkt. No. 29. “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer 27 v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “However, a court may under ‘exceptional 1 (citing Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub 2 || nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005)). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” 3 || requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits and of the plaintiffs 4 ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See 5 || Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. Both factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a 6 || request for counsel under § 1915. See id. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment 7 || of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to 8 succeed on the merits, the legal issues involved are not complex, and Plaintiff has thus far ably 9 || articulated his claims. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED. Dkt. 10 || No. 29. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel should 11 circumstances so require, 1.e., if this case proceeds to trial. 12 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 28, 29. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: 6/26/2023 Alaipurnl 5 Mbt). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 16 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28