Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies plaintiff Sidni Alfred Moore’s motion for appointment of counsel in his civil rights action. The court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting counsel and gives plaintiff twenty-one days to respond to defendants’ motions to revoke in forma pauperis status and dismiss the action, warning that failure to respond may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Moore demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the court's request for voluntary appointment of counsel in his § 1983 action.
- Whether Moore should receive one final opportunity to respond to defendants' motions after failing to meet two prior deadlines.
Holdings
- A district court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent an indigent prisoner in a § 1983 action only when exceptional circumstances exist, evaluated by considering the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues. Moore failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, so his motion for appointment of counsel was denied.
- After noting that Moore may not have received the court's prior order, the court granted one final twenty-one-day opportunity to respond to defendants' motions to revoke in forma pauperis status and to dismiss; failure to respond would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Key quotations
“When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” (at 1)
“These circumstances are not uncommon to pro se litigants and, having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time and the motion will be denied.” (at 2)
Factual background
Moore, a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel, asserted that he was indigent, suffered from PTSD, and no longer had assistance from other inmates after leaving prison. He had also failed to respond to defendants' motions to revoke his in forma pauperis status and to dismiss, missing two deadlines. The court noted that a prior order appeared not to have reached Moore because it was returned as undeliverable.
Procedural history
Moore filed a pro se prisoner civil-rights action and moved for appointment of counsel. Defendants filed motions to revoke his in forma pauperis status and to dismiss, but Moore failed to respond by two deadlines. The court denied appointment of counsel, gave Moore one final twenty-one-day opportunity to respond, and directed that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.