McCloskey

McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 20, 20231:23-cv-01699California360 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION 7 ALLEN D. MCCLOSKEY, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01699-RMI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. APPOINT COUNSEL

HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S Re: Dkt. No. 9 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel in a civil case. (Dkt. 9). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that the motion to appoint counsel is appropriate for decision without oral argument, and that the matter can be decided on the papers. Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (1981). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.