Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-02579
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School, Judge Hamilton denied two motions seeking appointed counsel because Navarrette showed no exceptional circumstances.
Tomas Navarrette’s requests for appointed counsel were denied; the underlying claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School, Tomas Navarrette asked the court twice to appoint a lawyer for him. Five Keys Schools and Programs did not oppose the first request.
The court explained that people generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases. For a person proceeding without paying court fees, the court may ask a lawyer to provide representation only in exceptional circumstances, including when the person is likely to succeed and cannot present the claims because they are too complex.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied both motions because Navarrette did not address his likelihood of success or show that his claims were too complex for him to present. The order said he could still contact the Legal Help Center for assistance.
The detailed version
- Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School · No. 4:20-cv-02579
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 23, 2021
Background
Tomas Navarrette filed two motions asking the court to appoint counsel. Five Keys Schools and Programs filed a statement saying it did not oppose the first motion. In response to both motions, the court directed Navarrette to contact the Legal Help Center for free legal advice.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Because Navarrette was proceeding without paying court fees, the court could request that a lawyer represent him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Such a request is discretionary and is made only when there are “exceptional circumstances.” The court said that evaluating exceptional circumstances requires considering both the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain the claims. A self-represented litigant must also show that the claims are so complex that the litigant cannot articulate the positions.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Navarrette did not present any argument in the motions about his likelihood of success. It also found that he had not shown that his claims were so complex that he could not explain them. The court therefore concluded that exceptional circumstances did not justify appointing counsel.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Navarrette’s motions for appointment of counsel. The order stated that the denial did not prevent him from contacting the Legal Help Center for assistance. The order addressed appointment of counsel and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.