Hunter v. Sokoloff

Background

The court had appointed attorneys from Durie Tangri LLP to represent John Douglas Hunter without charge. Durie Tangri later moved to withdraw. Hunter opposed the withdrawal and asked that the firm remain unless the court appointed substitute counsel. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted Durie Tangri’s withdrawal request and denied Hunter’s objection to that withdrawal. She treated the remaining part of Hunter’s filing as a request for new appointed counsel and referred that request to Judge Tigar.

Mike Sokoloff opposed Hunter’s request. The court treated Hunter’s reply as timely even though it was mailed and filed after the deadline because the reply stated that it had been signed before the deadline.

Legal standard

The court explained that people generally have no right to a lawyer in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may appoint counsel for a person who cannot afford a lawyer when “exceptional circumstances” exist. The court must consider both the person’s likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues. Neither factor alone controls.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Hunter had not shown a likelihood of success. Sokoloff’s decision not to seek summary judgment only meant that Sokoloff had not asserted that there was no genuine dispute about important facts and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It did not establish that Hunter was likely to win at trial, and the evidence needed to assess that likelihood was not before the court.

The court also found that the remaining legal issues were not complex. Hunter had one remaining claim: that Sokoloff gave him several medications, required him to take all of them or none, and used excessive force by choking him when Hunter tried to take the medication he recognized as Dilantin. Hunter alleged that he suffered serious neck and back injuries. The court described this as an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that allows claims against state actors, but it did not decide whether the claim was valid.

The court noted that discovery had finished, so no further factual development was expected. Previously appointed lawyers had helped Hunter with his deposition and discovery, including written discovery, depositions, and questioning Sokoloff during a deposition taken to preserve Sokoloff’s testimony. The court also found that Hunter could present his claim himself. It noted that he had chosen to direct his own litigation strategy, and that his filings showed he could review deposition testimony, use legal authorities, and make arguments under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also considered his experience representing himself in criminal trials, state cases, and other federal cases.

Ruling and case administration

Judge Tigar concluded that exceptional circumstances did not exist and denied Hunter’s further request for appointment of counsel. The order did not decide the merits of Hunter’s excessive-force claim.

Unless another lawyer enters an appearance for Hunter, Hunter must continue accepting service of papers and representing himself; papers must be mailed directly to him. The court also reminded Hunter that Sokoloff had died and that Hunter had to move to substitute Daniel Harris as Sokoloff’s successor by February 3, 2020. The court warned that failing to make that motion within the applicable period could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1).