4:19-cv-00015
N.D. Cal.Jul 23, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Steven Eric Gould, proceeding pro se in a § 1983 civil rights action, requested appointment of counsel.
- Gould stated he will be transferred to Orange County Jail and asserted the jail will limit his access to legal materials (no library, slow access to materials, no copy machine, restrictions on pens/mailers).
- He sought counsel to ensure he can properly litigate this and other pending cases across multiple districts.
- Defendants were recently served; no dispositive motions were pending and the court had received no change-of-address notification confirming the transfer.
- The court found Gould has thus far articulated his claims adequately and can request legal materials from the jail, albeit with delay.
- The court denied appointment of counsel without prejudice and declined to order counsel for Gould’s other cases in other districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a constitutional right to counsel in this § 1983 civil case | Gould asserted need for counsel due to restricted access to legal materials after transfer | Implicitly: no constitutional right to counsel in civil § 1983 cases absent potential loss of physical liberty | No constitutional right to counsel; appointment not warranted here |
| Whether the court should appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) | Gould argued exceptional circumstances (inability to access legal materials) justify appointment | Implicitly: no exceptional circumstances shown given current posture and plaintiff’s ability to articulate claims | Denied without prejudice — no exceptional circumstances shown at this time |
| Whether jail transfer and limited resources make pro se litigation infeasible | Gould claimed Orange County Jail’s restrictions will prevent meaningful litigation | Court noted uncertainty about transfer, unknown duration, and that requests for materials remain possible | Transfer uncertain; delays possible but not sufficient now to require counsel |
| Whether court can appoint counsel for plaintiff’s other cases in other districts | Gould sought counsel for cases in other districts | Court cannot order relief (appoint counsel) for cases pending in other courts | Denied as to other cases; court lacks authority over other districts’ cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (constitutional right to counsel in civil cases exists only in limited circumstances)
- Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (appointment under § 1915 is discretionary and only for exceptional circumstances)
- Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts must weigh likelihood of success and plaintiff’s ability to articulate claims when deciding appointment under § 1915)