Tamrat v. Rhodes
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-01323
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tamrat v. Rhodes, Judge Hamilton denied a prisoner’s request for counsel and granted defendants an extension to file a motion.
Herman Tamrat’s request for appointed counsel was denied; the defendants received an extension to file a motion by August 18, 2021.
What happened
Herman Tamrat, a prisoner representing himself in a civil-rights case, asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He argued for appointment of counsel, but the opinion says he presented his claims adequately and the legal issues were not complex.
The court explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer. It also said a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person without funds only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likely success of the claims and the person’s ability to explain them without a lawyer.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion to appoint counsel and granted the defendants an extension to file a motion by August 18, 2021. The opinion’s text is incomplete where it describes the defendants’ request.
The detailed version
- Tamrat v. Rhodes · No. 4:20-cv-01323
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 13, 2021
Background
Herman Tamrat brought this civil-rights case while representing himself and while imprisoned. He asked the court to appoint counsel. The defendants also requested an extension concerning a motion.
Appointment of Counsel
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that counsel represent a person who cannot afford a lawyer, but the court cannot force a lawyer to accept the appointment.
The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s “exceptional circumstances” standard. That standard considers both the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, in light of the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that Tamrat had presented his claims adequately and that the issues were not complex.
Ruling
The court denied Tamrat’s motion to appoint counsel. It also granted an extension for the defendants to file a motion by August 18, 2021. The opinion text appears truncated in the sentence describing that request, but the order heading states that an extension was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.