Siguenza v. CDCR

Background

Marlon Edgardo Siguenza, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue state officials for certain constitutional violations. The court previously found that the operative complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim and a cognizable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Correctional Training Facility official Mora. Mora filed a waiver of reply instead of an answer, as permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1).

Request for Counsel

Siguenza asked the court to appoint counsel to help him prepare for trial and conduct discovery. He specifically sought assistance obtaining transcripts from a deposition of Mora in another case and reported that he had served discovery requests on Mora.

A court may request an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford one, but appointment is discretionary and is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The court evaluates both the plaintiff’s likelihood of success and the plaintiff’s ability to explain and litigate the claims without a lawyer, considering those factors together.

Ruling

The court held that Siguenza had not shown exceptional circumstances. It found that the likelihood of success was unclear at this early stage and that Siguenza had so far litigated the case effectively. The court also found that obtaining deposition transcripts from another case did not require representation by counsel.

The court DENIED Siguenza’s request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances, without prejudice to the court appointing counsel in the future if circumstances require it. The order terminated Docket No. 21. This order decided only the request for appointed counsel; it did not decide the merits of Siguenza’s underlying claims.