Paleveda v. Alameda County
- Robert Illman
- 5:24-cv-08716
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Paleveda v. Alameda County, Judge Illman denied counsel without prejudice but granted an extension to file a second amended complaint.
Nicholas Ewing Paleveda’s requests were affected: his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, while his request for an extension to file a second amended complaint was granted. The case remained at the pleading stage, with a filing deadline of June 20, 2025.
What happened
In Paleveda v. Alameda County, a detainee representing himself filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law known as Section 1983. The court had previously dismissed his amended complaint but allowed him to file another version.
The plaintiff asked for more time to file the new complaint and asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The court found that his allegations had little likelihood of success, but that he could explain his claims and the legal issues were not complex.
Judge Robert M. Illman denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice and granted the request for more time. The plaintiff must file a new second amended complaint by June 20, 2025.
The detailed version
- Paleveda v. Alameda County · No. 5:24-cv-08716
- Robert Illman
- May 21, 2025
Background
Nicholas Ewing Paleveda, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed his amended complaint with permission to file a second amended complaint. Paleveda then requested an extension of time to file that complaint and asked the court to appoint counsel.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case. A court may request that a lawyer represent a person who is proceeding without funds to pay filing fees, but it cannot force a lawyer to accept the appointment. Under Ninth Circuit law, a court may request counsel only in exceptional circumstances. That inquiry considers the plaintiff’s likelihood of success and whether the plaintiff can explain his claims without a lawyer given the complexity of the legal issues.
The court relied on its prior screening order, which found that most of Paleveda’s allegations failed to state a claim and that there was little likelihood of success. It also found that Paleveda had adequately presented his claims and that the issues were not complex. The court therefore DENIED without prejudice the motion to appoint counsel.
Extension and Filing Instructions
The court found good cause to extend the filing deadline and GRANTED Paleveda’s request for an extension. It ordered that the second amended complaint be filed by June 20, 2025. The Clerk was directed to send Paleveda a copy of the amended complaint for review. The court instructed him to file a new second amended complaint rather than write in the margins of the copy sent by the court. It also stated that any request for additional law-library access must be made at his institution, where he may show officials the order containing the deadline.
Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order on May 21, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.