Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00157/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA ALAN BLOW,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et. al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 14, 18)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Alan Blow’s Motion for Appointment 

of Counsel, (ECF No. 14), and Renewed Request for Appointment of Counsel, (“Counsel 

Mot.,” ECF No. 18).

1 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis but denied his initial motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 4.) The Court 

subsequently denied his amended motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 10.) The Court 

concluded exercising its limited ability to appoint counsel in a civil case was not 

appropriate because Plaintiff had not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances.” (Id.; see 

 

1 Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 14), appears to be a verbatim copy of his 

Renewed Request for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 18). Accordingly, the Court cites to the latter 

of Plaintiff’s motions, but the Court’s Order applies to both.

Case 3:17-cv-00157-JLS-JLB Document 26 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

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

also id. at 3–4

2

(discussing Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2004), and setting 

forth the appropriate legal standard for appointment of counsel in civil proceedings).)

In his renewed request, Plaintiff provides an affidavit from Julio Reyes, who is 

Plaintiff’s “caretaker and partner in everything else in life.” (Counsel Mot. 2, ECF No. 18.)

In general, Mr. Reyes states the following: (1) Mr. Reyes has drafted and assisted Plaintiff 

with his filings thus far, (id. ¶ 1); (2) Plaintiff has difficulty articulating his claims and gets 

easily frustrated by complex tasks due to his disabilities, (id. ¶ 2); (3) Plaintiff does not 

have any formal legal training, (id. ¶ 3); (4) Mr. Reyes is not a lawyer and thus cannot 

represent Plaintiff, (id. ¶ 4); (5) Plaintiff and Mr. Reyes have unsuccessfully sought legal 

counsel from other organizations, (id. ¶ 5); (6) Defendants have “vast resources and 

unlimited budgets” and thus it is unfair for Plaintiff to be unrepresented, (id. ¶ 6); (7) 

Plaintiff does not understand “the legal terms, citations[,] and jargon” used in the Court’s 

Orders, (id. ¶ 7). 

As before, this request still does not demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” 

warranting an appointment of counsel. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. First, Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. This case is in its infancy, and

Defendants have recently filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 

(See ECF No. 25.) Second, Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to articulate his claims 

pro se thus far. In addition to filing the several motions for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff 

has successfully moved the Court for permission to amend his original Complaint, (see 

ECF Nos. 22, 23), and Plaintiff successfully filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ 

initial motion to dismiss the original Complaint, (see ECF No. 23), which is replete with 

case analysis and citations. This renders questionable Plaintiff’s claim that he does not

/ / /

/ / /

 

2 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:17-cv-00157-JLS-JLB Document 26 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-157 JLS (JLB)

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

understand the “legal terms, citations[,] and jargon” of the Court’s Orders. Accordingly, at 

this time the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s pending motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 14, 

18).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00157-JLS-JLB Document 26 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3