Bulandr v. Robertson
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-07942
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bulandr v. Robertson, Judge Freeman denied Bulandr’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Ian Anthony Bulandr’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying civil-rights case was not resolved by this order.
What happened
In Bulandr v. Robertson, Ian Anthony Bulandr, a California state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil-rights case. The court had already found that his complaint stated legally valid claims and had ordered it served on the defendants.
Bulandr said he could not afford a lawyer, that the issues were complex, that a lawyer could better handle evidence and witnesses, and that he lacked law-library access during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the claims were not complex, it was not yet clear that the case would go to trial, and the other circumstances were common among self-represented prisoners.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion without prejudice because Bulandr had not shown exceptional circumstances. The court said it could appoint counsel later if the circumstances warranted it and terminated the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Bulandr v. Robertson · No. 5:19-cv-07942
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 14, 2020
Background
Ian Anthony Bulandr, a California state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found that the complaint stated legally valid claims and ordered the case served on the defendants. The opinion identifies the claims as arising under the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
Motion for counsel
Bulandr asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He stated that he could not afford counsel, the issues were too complex and would require substantial research and investigation, a lawyer would be better able to present evidence and question witnesses, and he had no access to the law library because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose physical liberty. Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is instead within the trial court’s discretion and is reserved for “exceptional circumstances.”
The court found that Bulandr’s claims were not complex. It also noted that it was not yet clear whether the case would proceed to trial and that Bulandr’s other circumstances were not different from those faced by other self-represented prisoners.
Ruling
Judge Freeman denied Bulandr’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. The court stated that this did not prevent it from appointing counsel at a later date if the circumstances warranted it. The order terminated Docket No. 15.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.