Castillo
Castillo v. United States
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTURO MARCELINO CASTILLO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01017-BTM-DEB Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. APPOINT COUNSEL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. [ECF NO. 3] 16 17 On October 2, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Arturo Castillo filed a letter notifying the Court of his new address. (ECF No. 3 at 1 (“Letter”).) In the Letter, Plaintiff also asks: “How soon will I be given an attorney or must I search for one on my own.” (Id.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s Letter as a Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. However, this discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional…