John Farrow v. Robin Lipetzky, 637 F. App'x 986

Plaintiffs Farrow and Wade allege Lipetzky’s policy withheld counsel for indigent defendants at initial appearance for 5–13 days (sometimes longer).
The district court dismissed all federal claims; the Ninth Circuit reverses in part and remands.
Plaintiffs’ claims include due process, equal protection, and Sixth Amendment violations arising from delayed appointment of counsel.
The Sixth Amendment claim centers on delay after attachment and whether initial appearance was a critical stage requiring counsel.
Rothgery v. Gillespie County governs whether counsel must be appointed within a reasonable time for adequate representation at critical stages.
Court remands to assess whether five to thirteen day delays (or longer) after attachment satisfy the reasonable-time standard for appointment of counsel

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly dismissed due process claim	Farrow argues due process violation due to delay	Lipetzky contends no underlying speedy-trial violation pleaded	Remanded for possible due-process analysis; underlying speedy-trial violation not alleged
Whether the equal protection claim fails	Indigent defendants lack adequate counsel at initial appearance	Counsel provision not constitutionally required; adequate opportunity to present claims exists	Affirmed on equal protection grounds; no constitutional requirement shown
Whether the Sixth Amendment claim was properly dismissed	Counsel was withheld for days, impairing representation at critical stages	Initial appearance not a critical stage requiring counsel; further arraignment is the critical stage	Reversed in part and remanded to consider reasonable-time appointment under Rothgery; potential Sixth Amendment violation not foreclosed
Whether the district court should consider state-law claims after Sixth Amendment ruling	State claims should be considered when federal claims are revived	Remains moot if federal claims fail	Remanded; with Sixth Amendment claim revived, state claims must be reconsidered

Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 1997) (liberty interests under Due Process may arise from state law)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1974) (indigent-rep. not constitutionally required at all times)
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (U.S. 2005) (equal protection concerns in indigent defense)
Johnson v. Oklahoma, 484 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1987) (indigent defense and equality before the law)
Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (U.S. 2008) (right to counsel attaches at attachment; reasonable-time standard for appointment)
United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (initial appearance not automatically critical stage; need for counsel varies)
White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1963) (further arraignment as critical stage where pleas entered)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (preliminary hearing context for due process)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (grave risk of prejudice standard for Sixth Amendment)
Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1961) (absence of counsel may affect whole trial)
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1986) (critical-stage analysis of arraignment and counsel)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (speedy-trial framework for due process)