Tamrat v. Reid
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-01324
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tamrat v. Reid, Judge Hamilton denied prisoner Herman Tamrat’s motion to appoint counsel because he showed no exceptional circumstances.
Herman Tamrat’s request for appointed counsel was denied; the underlying civil-rights claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
Tamrat v. Reid is a civil-rights case brought by Herman Tamrat, a prisoner representing himself. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
The court denied the motion. It explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer and that appointed counsel is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that Tamrat had presented his claims adequately and that the legal issues were not complex.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that Tamrat would receive more time to file an amended filing because of the public health crisis and difficulties using the law library. The provided opinion text is incomplete at that point and does not show what filing was involved or the full terms of the extension.
The detailed version
- Tamrat v. Reid · No. 4:20-cv-01324
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 7, 2020
Background
Herman Tamrat, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights case and moved for appointment of counsel. The opinion states that Tamrat was also proceeding without paying the usual filing fees. The caption identifies Alameda County and other defendants, while the supplied case name is Tamrat v. Reid.
Legal standard
The court explained that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under the applicable statute, a court may request that a lawyer represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but it may not force a lawyer to accept the appointment. Ninth Circuit law allows a district court to ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances.” The court must consider both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, given the complexity of the legal issues.
Ruling
The court found that Tamrat had presented his claims adequately and that the issues were not complex. It therefore denied Tamrat’s motion to appoint counsel, identified as Docket No. 16. The order also stated that, because of the public health crisis and difficulties using the law library, Tamrat would receive an extension to file an amended filing. The supplied text is incomplete after that statement, so it does not reveal the full description of the filing, the length of the extension, or the complete warning that followed.
Judge
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on July 7, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.