Blueford v. Salinas Valley State Prison
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-00915
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Blueford v. Green, Judge Hamilton denied prisoner Javar Lester Blueford’s request for appointed counsel, finding no exceptional circumstances, while extending his summary-judgment response deadline.
Javar Lester Blueford remains without appointed counsel for this stage of the case, although he may renew the request if the case proceeds to trial. The deadline for opposing the pending summary-judgment motion was extended to January 21, 2020.
What happened
Javar Lester Blueford, a prisoner representing himself in Blueford v. Green, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil-rights case.
The court explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer. It found that Blueford had presented his claim adequately and that the legal issues were not complex enough to justify requesting counsel under the standard for exceptional circumstances.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion to appoint counsel. The court said Blueford could renew the request if the case reached trial and gave him until January 21, 2020, to oppose the pending summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Blueford v. Salinas Valley State Prison · No. 4:19-cv-00915
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
Javar Lester Blueford, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights case against Kelly Green and other defendants. He moved for appointment of counsel under Docket No. 23.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a district court may request that a lawyer represent a person who cannot afford one, but the court cannot force a lawyer to accept the appointment. Ninth Circuit law permits such a request only in “exceptional circumstances.” That determination considers both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer in light of the complexity of the legal issues.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that Blueford had presented his claim adequately and that the issues were not complex. It therefore denied his motion to appoint counsel. The court stated that Blueford could renew the request if the case proceeded to trial.
The court also gave Blueford until January 21, 2020, to file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment. It warned that failing to file an opposition could result in dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.