Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Weiss v. City of Santa Rosa Police Department, 15-cv-01639-YGR. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160627568 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 66 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In contrast to criminal proceedings, there generally is no constitutional right to counsel in civil actions. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796 , 801 (9th Cir. 1986) ("There is normally . . . no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case."). This decision of whether to request counsel is with
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 66

The Court has reviewed plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

In contrast to criminal proceedings, there generally is no constitutional right to counsel in civil actions. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) ("There is normally . . . no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case."). This decision of whether to request counsel is within the discretion of the district court and is "granted only in exceptional circumstances." See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). Deciding whether "exceptional circumstances" exist requires an evaluation of the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).

This case does not present an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. However, the Court itself pays close attention to the legal issues addressed in the filing and has referred the parties to a magistrate judge to attempt to resolve the matter without further legal proceedings.

The Court understands the difficulties that pro se litigants encounter and has available, through the Court's website, http://cand.uscourts.gov, a "Handbook for Pro Se Litigants," which contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney. The Court also advises plaintiff that additional assistance may be available by making an appointment with the Legal Help Center. There is no fee for this service. Please visit the Court's website or call the phone numbers listed below for current office hours, forms, and policies.

To make an appointment with the Legal Help Center in Oakland, plaintiff may visit the Oakland Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Room 470S, Oakland, California, 94612, or call (415) 782-8982.

To make an appointment with the Legal Help Center in San Francisco, plaintiff may visit the San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, California, 94102, or call (415) 782-8982.

To make an appointment with the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center in San Jose, plaintiff may visit the San Jose Federal Courthouse, located at 280 South 1st Street, 4th Floor, Rooms 4093 & 4095, San Jose, California, 95113, or call (408) 297-1480.

This Order Terminates Docket Number 66.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer