Santiago v. Brennan
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-01571
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Santiago v. Brennan, Judge Rogers denied counsel without prejudice and continued the case-management conference.
Willie Romero Santiago's request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, and the case-management schedule was changed. Megan J. Brennan's response period was noted because she had been served but had not yet appeared.
What happened
In Santiago v. Brennan, Willie Romero Santiago asked the court to appoint a lawyer and made several other requests, including requests about discovery, pleadings, and scheduling. Megan J. Brennan had been served but had not appeared, and the response period had not yet expired.
The court explained that people generally do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases. It may ask a lawyer to represent someone who cannot afford one when exceptional circumstances exist, based partly on the likely success of the claims and the person's ability to present them. The court said it could not yet determine whether those circumstances existed.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Santiago's request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning the court could reconsider it later. The court continued the case-management conference from July 6, 2020, to August 10, 2020, and said it would discuss Santiago's other requests at that conference.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Brennan · No. 4:20-cv-01571
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 29, 2020
Background
Willie Romero Santiago filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel. He also made requests concerning oral argument, a protective order, discovery obligations, a medical expert, a special master, a dispositive-motion deadline, magistrate involvement, a discovery meeting, a July 2020 trial date, amendments to his pleadings, additional defendants, relief, and trial subpoenas.
The court noted that Santiago had filed proof that Megan J. Brennan was served through an authorized agent on April 29, 2020. Brennan had not appeared, and 60 days had not elapsed from service on an officer of a United States agency.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court has limited authority to request an attorney for a person unable to afford one in exceptional circumstances. To assess whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court considers the apparent likelihood of success on the merits and the person's ability to present the claims, including the complexity of the legal issues.
At this stage, the court could not determine whether exceptional circumstances were present. It therefore denied without prejudice Santiago's motion for appointment of counsel. The court stated that it could later reconsider and request appointment of counsel.
Other Requests and Scheduling
The court said it would discuss Santiago's additional requests with him at the case-management conference. It continued the conference from July 6, 2020, to August 10, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. The order also stated that it terminated Docket Number 12.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.