Sandoval v. Abbott House

Background

Melissa M. Sandoval sued Abbott House on behalf of herself and her three minor children. She was representing herself. The court appointed pro bono counsel—free legal counsel—for the children, and the children later voluntarily dismissed their claims. Sandoval then moved for pro bono counsel for herself.

Sandoval had been authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning she could litigate without paying court fees. The court applied the standard from Hodge v. Police Officers, under which it first considers whether the applicant’s position appears likely to have legal substance. If that threshold is met, the court may consider additional factors, including the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the issues, and whether conflicting evidence may require cross-examination.

Ruling

The court concluded that it could not find, at that stage, that Sandoval’s own claims were likely to be of substance. It distinguished those claims from the claims previously brought on behalf of her children, which the court had found likely to be of substance. Because Sandoval did not meet that initial standard, the court did not request pro bono counsel and did not consider the other factors. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 38.

The court extended Sandoval’s deadline to respond to Abbott House’s motion to dismiss from January 9, 2025, to January 30, 2025. Abbott House’s deadline to file a reply was correspondingly extended from January 23, 2025, to February 13, 2025. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Sandoval permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.