Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01126/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01126-2/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16CV1126-LAB(BLM) 

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 

DARREN VINCENT FORD, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

J. LEWIS, DANIEL PARAMO, AND H. 

GREENWALD, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV1126-LAB(BLM) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL AND REQUEST TO SEAL 

[ECF No. 14] 

 

On June 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel that was accepted 

by the Court on discrepancy on July 19, 2016. ECF Nos. 13 and 14. Plaintiff requests that the 

Court appoint counsel to represent his interests in the instant matter. Id. at 1. In support, 

Plaintiff states that he is (1) indigent, (2) at risk of losing personal and/or property rights, (3) 

untrained in the law, (4) barred from access to the courts in violation of due process and equal 

protection in light of his poverty and incarceration, and (5) “likely to suffer adverse judgment” 

without adequate representation and access to the courts. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further states that 

he has a right to the appointment of legal counsel and that without such he will “continue to 

suffer deprivations of constitutional and/or other legal rights as stated above.” Id. at 3. Finally, 

Plaintiff cites to two California state court cases, Yarbrough v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 3d 197, 

702 P.2d 583 (1985) and Payne v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 3d 908, 553 P.2d 565 (1976) in 

Case 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16CV1126-LAB(BLM) 

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

support of his position. Id. at 4. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

1. Appointment of Counsel 

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an 

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted 

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances demands at least “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity 

of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986)). 

Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted several pleadings and motions without the 

assistance of counsel. See Docket. In addition to the instant motion, he has submitted a 

complaint (ECF No. 1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), a previous motion 

for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3), a consent to magistrate jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 5 and 6), 

and a notice of change of address (ECF No. 12). From the Court’s review of these documents, 

it is clear that Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his case. The Court previously denied 

Plaintiff’s request for counsel [see ECF No. 10] and Plaintiff’s current request does not provide 

any new facts justifying such an extraordinary remedy. ECF No. 14. Further, Plaintiff does not 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that his case should be classified as an 

“exceptional circumstance[].” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” at this time, the Court 

DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 

2. Request to Seal 

In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court “order that all records pertaining 

to this motion be sealed subject to inspection only upon order of this court after a showing of 

good cause.” ECF No. 14 at 7. 

There's a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records and against 

Case 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16CV1126-LAB(BLM) 

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

sealing. See, Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(stating that “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”)(quoting 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Kamakana 

v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, as stated in 

Judge Major’s chambers rules, “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a showing that the 

information is privileged or protectable under the law” and the “request must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material.” See Honorable Barbara 

Lynn Major U.S. Magistrate Judge Chambers Rules.1 Here, Plaintiff fails to tailor his request or 

explain in any way why the information contained in the instant motion should be sealed. ECF 

No. 14. Additionally, much of the information contained in the instant motion already appears 

on the docket unsealed. See Docket. For example, Plaintiff’s previous motions reveal that he 

is indigent and seeking the assistance of counsel and Plaintiff’s complaint explains the basis of 

his claims and background on the basis of Plaintiff’s incarceration. See ECF Nos. 1-3. Because 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for sealing the instant motion and order, and in 

light of the Court’s presumption in favor of access to judicial records, Plaintiff’s request to seal 

“all records pertaining to this motion” is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 7/19/2016 

                                                       

1 Available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/SitePages/Home.aspx 

Case 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3