Sweeney v. Carringer

Background

Plaintiffs John Donnelly Sweeney and Jennifer Frost filed two motions. They asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which permits a court in some circumstances to appoint a lawyer for an indigent civil litigant. They also asked the court to stay five lawsuits in which they had been named as defendants: four lawsuits in California Superior Court for Solano County and one lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Appointment of Counsel

The plaintiffs argued that appointment of counsel was justified by their indigence, the complexity of what they described as a decade-long conspiracy involving multiple jurisdictions and constitutional violations, and other exceptional circumstances. The court explained that people generally have no right to appointed counsel in civil cases, but that a court may appoint counsel when exceptional circumstances exist. The court found no exceptional circumstances and denied the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.

Motion for Stay

The court did not rule on the substance of the motion to stay the five other lawsuits. Instead, it stayed consideration of that motion until the defendants had appeared in this action. The court directed the plaintiffs to meet and confer with the defendants about an appropriate briefing schedule and to include the results in their July 22, 2025 case-management statement.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel and stayed consideration of the motion for a stay until the defendants appeared. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on May 12, 2025.