Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00380/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00380-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEBRA NAGAST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv0380-GPC-JMA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND SETTING REVISED

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Dkt. No. 17]

vs.

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT

SYSTEM; SGT. EDWARDS; SGT.

ZAMORA; OFC. ALAMILLO; and

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For

the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and sets the REVISED

BRIEFING SCHEDULE for Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

I. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On July 9, 2013, Kebra Nagast (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Appointment of

Counsel. (Dkt No. 17.) Plaintiff maintains that mental disability and insufficient legal

knowledge impede the ability to proceed pro se. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2.)

On August 1, 2013, Defendants San Diego Metropolitan System, Code

Compliance Inspector Alamillo and Code Compliance Inspector Edwards

(“Defendants”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 18.) Defendants

assert that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a substantive legal claim that could

successfully circumvent statutory and qualified immunities of the Defendants and

- 1 - 13cv0380-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00380-GPC-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 3
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

further fails to establish a loss of personal liberty or fundamental property rights if no

appointment is made. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2-5.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a district court has discretion to ask counsel to

represent an indigent plaintiff. See Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3e 1101, 1103

(9th Cir. 2004). However, exigent circumstances must exist for the court to exercise

such discretion, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir 1991), since civil

proceedings do not yield an absolute right to counsel. See Hedges v. Resolution Trust

Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Exigent circumstances are indicated by

consideration of both the likely success of the Plaintiff’s claim and the Plaintiff’s

capability to effectively communicate complex legal issuesinvolved, neither of which,

alone, are dispositive. See Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989);

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

In the present proceeding, although Plaintiff states an inability to properly

represent himself due to mental disability and insufficient legal knowledge, the record

shows Plaintiff has the ability to communicate legal issues. For example, Plaintiff has

filed an Amended Complaint, exemplifying his ability to articulate allegations against

Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to illustrate any likelihood of the claims

success. Consequently, the Plaintiff has not met the requirements for appointment of

counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of

Counsel must be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II. SETTING REVISED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

The Court observesthat Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss, which was ordered to be submitted on or by August 5, 2013. (See Dkt. Nos.

14, 15.) Defendants have filed a notice of non-opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

(Dkt. No. 19.) Given the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of

Counsel, the Court hereby grants Plaintiff an additional 21 days to file a responsive

pleading. Accordingly, the Court sets the REVISED BRIEFING SCHEDULE:

Plaintiff shall file a response on or by Wednesday, October 18, 2013. Any reply shall

- 2 - 13cv0380-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00380-GPC-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 3
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

be filed in or by October 25, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 4, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv0380-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-00380-GPC-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 3 of 3