Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06719/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06719-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TARAH JOY JOHNSON et. al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) 

et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1: 04 CV F 04-6719 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO FILE EX PARTE

APPLICATION UNDER SEAL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

On August 15, 2005, Defendant Joseph S. Nieto (“Defendant”) filed an ex parte

application for appointment of counsel. Defendant requested that the application be filed under

seal.

Defendant filed a previous application for appointment of counsel in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 20, 2005, the Court denied the request and

explained that the exceptional circumstances required for the appointment of counsel were not

present. 

Defendant’s current application includes declarations from numerous attorneys detailing

the complexity of his underlying criminal case. Defendant also submits his own declaration

explaining his failed attempts to retain legal counsel because of his inability to pay legal fees. 

Case 1:04-cv-06719-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 08/17/05 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

2

While 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for appointment of counsel for plaintiff in a civil case in

certain circumstances, the Court is unaware of any authority to support appointment of counsel

for a defendant in a civil action. The complex nature of Defendant’s underlying criminal case

and consequently this action, and his inability retain and pay legal counsel to represent him in the

instant federal civil rights action are adequately demonstrated in the application. However, there

is simply no authority to support the appointment of counsel for Defendant. 

Indeed, even if the Court had the authority to appoint counsel, it would be extremely

difficult to find willing counsel. When the Court appoints counsel for a civil rights plaintiff

counsel it does so without the payment of attorney’s fees - i.e., it has no authority or source of

funds to pay fees in same manner as appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants. A

prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights action is normally entitled to attorneys’ fees, and an attorney

will often agree to be appointed to represent a plaintiff based on the strength of the case and the

likelihood he or she can recover attorneys’ fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. On the other hand, a

defendant in a civil rights case can only recover attorneys’ fees if it can show that the action was

frivolous, unreasonable and groundless. Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2002). 

This is a relatively high standard and awards to defendants are therefore extremely rare. 

This Court lacks authority to appoint counsel to represent Defendant Nieto in this action.

ORDER

1. Defendant’s request to file the ex parte application for appointment of counsel

under seal is GRANTED; and

2. Defendant’s ex parte application for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 16, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06719-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2