Smith v. Jones
3:20-cv-00504
| D. Nev. | Apr 5, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Willie T. Smith, a prisoner, sought appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting a single Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim arising from one incident.
- Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin denied the motion on March 14, 2022, concluding no "exceptional circumstances" justified appointment of counsel because Smith could articulate his claim and the matter was not overly complex.
- Smith filed a timely objection asking the district court to reconsider, arguing (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits and would benefit from counsel; (2) the amended complaint increases complexity; and (3) trial preparation will exceed his pro se abilities.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s pretrial order under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard and considered whether Judge Baldwin applied the correct exceptional-circumstances test.
- The court affirmed the magistrate judge: there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil § 1983 cases, a showing of likely success alone is insufficient, Smith’s filings demonstrated adequate ability to articulate claims, and the amended complaint did not render the case too complex.
- Defendants did not file a response to Smith’s objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant/Magistrate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel should be appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) ("exceptional circumstances" test) | Smith: Exceptional circumstances exist because he is likely to succeed and would be helped by counsel. | Magistrate: No exceptional circumstances; Smith can articulate claims and case is not complex. | Court: Affirmed denial—no clear error; likelihood of success alone insufficient. |
| Whether the amended complaint made the case sufficiently complex to require counsel | Smith: Amended complaint added defendants and facts, increasing complexity. | Magistrate: Amended complaint still asserts a single claim from a single incident; complexity not increased to exceptional level. | Court: Amended complaint not so complex; Smith’s filings remain clear and organized. |
| Whether anticipated trial demands justify appointment of counsel | Smith: Trial tasks (witness prep, strategy, jury presentation) exceed his abilities. | Magistrate: Trial demands are common to all pro se litigants; need for counsel must be exceptional. | Court: Not persuaded trial demands alone create exceptional circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989) (magistrate judges may be delegated pretrial administrative functions)
- United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (definition of "clearly erroneous" standard)
- Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (magistrate pretrial orders reviewed under deferential standard, not de novo)
- Adir Int’l, LLC v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Co., 994 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2021) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases)
- Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions)
- Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (exceptional-circumstances test requires evaluation of likelihood of success and ability to articulate claims)
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (discussing factors relevant to appointment of counsel in civil cases)