Lucero v. Arce
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-07510
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lucero v. Arce, Judge Corley denied Charles Patrick Lucero’s counsel request but extended his amendment deadline to October 3, 2025.
Charles Patrick Lucero, who was litigating without an attorney, was denied appointed counsel but received additional time to amend his complaint; the case's amendment process and claims against the remaining defendants were affected.
What happened
In Lucero v. Arce, Charles Patrick Lucero, a California prisoner without a lawyer, asked the court to appoint counsel in his civil-rights case and to extend his deadline to amend his complaint. The court had previously found that the complaint stated claims that could proceed against Dr. Mendez, while dismissing other claims and allowing most of them to be amended.
The court said civil litigants generally have no right to appointed counsel. It found that Lucero’s statements about mental illness and not knowing how to handle the case were not enough, particularly because he had filed an 11-page complaint with claims against ten defendants. The court also found that the case was not too complex and that Lucero had not shown he could not present his claims effectively.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the request for appointment of counsel. The court also allowed Lucero until October 3, 2025, to amend his complaint as permitted by the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Lucero v. Arce · No. 3:24-cv-07510
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
Charles Patrick Lucero, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court previously determined that, when read liberally, the complaint stated claims capable of judicial determination against Dr. Mendez. The court dismissed the other claims because they were not capable of judicial determination. It allowed Lucero to amend those claims, except for the claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which it dismissed without leave to amend. The amendment deadline had been extended to September 15, 2025.
Lucero then sent the court a letter asking for appointed counsel and another extension of time. He said that he was mentally ill and did not know how to handle the lawsuit.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that there is no general right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may request counsel for an indigent litigant only in exceptional circumstances. The court found Lucero’s statements about mental illness conclusory because he did not identify the illness or explain how it prevented him from pursuing the case.
The court also relied on Lucero’s ability to file an 11-page complaint naming ten defendants and asserting multiple constitutional claims, including claims capable of judicial determination. It stated that amending the other claims would require Lucero to allege additional facts within his knowledge and use discovery to learn the names of additional defendants, and that he had not shown himself incapable of doing those things. The court found that the issues were not sufficiently complex and that Lucero was not unable to present his claims effectively.
Ruling
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Lucero’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court stated that it would issue a referral order on its own if locating volunteer counsel later became necessary and directed Lucero not to request appointment of counsel in that court again.
The court also allowed Lucero an additional extension of time, through October 3, 2025, to amend his complaint in accordance with the earlier partial-dismissal order. The order disposed of Docket No. 19. This order addressed appointment of counsel and the amendment deadline; it did not decide the underlying merits of Lucero’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.