Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01049/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Duarte049dis

 **Original filed 3/21/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC DUARTE, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOSE FIGUEROA, CHIEF OF POLICE,

SANTA CLARA, et. al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1049 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 3, 4)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of his minor son, Michael Duarte (“Michael”), alleging

claims of excessive force by Santa Clara Police Officers on or about December 12, 2001. 

The complaint seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment. The complaint

alleges that Santa Clara Police Officers used excessive force by threatening Michael’s life

at gunpoint during a search of Plaintiff’s house. The Court concludes that Plaintiff

cannot bring the instant action on behalf of his minor son under § 1983 and will

DISMISS the complaint without prejudice. Based upon the dismissal, Plaintiff’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 3, 4) are

DENIED. 

Case 5:05-cv-01049-JF Document 6 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

1 Nor is the Free Exercise Clause violated by requiring a parent or guardian to retain a lawyer

even if the requirement is at odds with conduct that the parent or guardian’s religion prescribes. 

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Duarte049dis

DISCUSSION

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t. 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under the color of state law

committed a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

An individual’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of the individual’s

domicile. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under California law, an individual under the age of

eighteen is a minor, see Cal. Fam. Code § 6502, who may bring suit as long as a guardian

conducts the proceedings, see id. § 6601. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d

874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (non-attorney raising a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 may appear pro se on his own behalf, but he has no authority to appear as an

attorney for others than himself). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)) further provides

that “[w]henever an infant or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general

guardian, committee, conservator or other fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend

on behalf of the infant or incompetent person.” A parent or guardian cannot bring an

action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer, however. See Johns, 114

F.3d at 877. “‘[I]t is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented

by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to

trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.’” Id. at 876-77 (quoting

Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College, 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991)).1 If a lawyer is

Case 5:05-cv-01049-JF Document 6 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

See Johns, 114 F.3d at 877. A parent’s right to direct a child’s religious upbringing is not at

stake when requiring a lawyer; at issue is the appropriate protection of a minor’s legal rights in

federal court. See id. 

 

2

 Generally, state statutes of limitation toll causes of action for minors, and the limitations

period for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be taken from the statute governing

actions for personal injuries in the state where the claim arose. See Johns, 114 F.3d at 878 n.2.

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Duarte049dis

not secured to bring suit on a minor’s behalf, the complaint should be dismissed without

prejudice so the minor may bring the action upon reaching the age of majority. See id. at

878.2

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (docket

no. 4). Plaintiff maintains that appointment of counsel is necessary because he is unable

to afford counsel, the issues involved are complex, he has a limited knowledge of the law,

and that the claims are meritorious. However, there is no constitutional right to counsel

in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 confers on a district court only the power to “request” that counsel represent a

litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give

the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 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

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery was

comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

Case 5:05-cv-01049-JF Document 6 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Duarte049dis

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). The Court

concludes that appointment of counsel is not required in this action. Plaintiff has aptly

presented his claims in a pending § 1983 action in the Court, C 05-1374 CW (PR). The

minor’s claims are not complex at this stage of the proceedings, and there is no apparent

reason why Plaintiff is the only individual that can bring this proceeding on behalf of

Michael. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 4) is

DENIED without prejudice. As Plaintiff cannot represent his minor son in this action, the

instant complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that Plaintiff is unable to proceed pro se, on behalf of his

minor son, in this § 1983 action. The instant complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions (docket nos. 3, 4) and close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/20/06 

 JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01049-JF Document 6 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Duarte049dis

This is to certify that on 3/21/06, a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Eric Duarte 

T-24814

CA State Prison - Corcoran II

P.O. Box 3481

SHU 4B-3L-59

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 5:05-cv-01049-JF Document 6 Filed 03/21/06 Page 5 of 5