Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00158/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00158-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1320d-2 Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA)

---

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,

CASE NO. 17cv158-LAB (KSC)

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION

vs. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Joshua Blow, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint, along with a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. The Court granted him

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, screened and dismissed his complaint, and denied his

motion to appoint counsel, noting he had not asked any attorneys about the possibility of

representing him.

He has now renewed his motion for appointment of counsel, saying he contacted two

legal aid societies but neither was equipped to handle a claim in federal court. Although he

said he made “many calls and attempts to find legal counsel,” he did not say what those

were, whom he contacted, or why they were not employed to handle his claims.

In its screening order, the Court pointed out that Blow probably does not have any

claim that this Court can adjudicate. He has no claim under HIPAA, and any claim he might 

have appears to be a state claim. But because the parties are not diverse, the Court cannot

- 1 - 17cv158

Case 3:17-cv-00158-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

exercise diversity jurisdiction over any state law claim he might have. In addition, the claims

are intertwined with state court proceedings, which likely prevents or severely limits the

Court’s power to adjudicate them. Because it wasn’t completely certain that Blow could not

amend to state a federal claim, the Court gave him leave to amend. But at the same time

it appears unlikely he has any claim that could be heard by this Court. The state court where

his case is being heard may be the appropriate forum to raise his concerns, or he may have

some claim that another state court could adjudicate.

The Court may request counsel to represent an indigent litigant in “exceptional

circumstances”. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9 Cir. 1984). Exceptional th

circumstances require the Court to consider the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits,

and an evaluation of his ability to articulate his claims. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Blow appears to be reasonably able to articulate his claims, at least

at this stage of the litigation. He is able to file intelligible motions, and the Court understands

the general nature of his claims. It appears very unlikely, though, that he will succeed on the

merits, at least in this Court. Both factors weigh against appointing counsel, and the Court

finds that no exceptional circumstances exist at this time that would justify requesting

counsel for Blow.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 17cv158

Case 3:17-cv-00158-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2