Peace v. Wu
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-01227
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Peace v. Wu, Judge Illston denied appointed counsel and found Peace’s amended state-law claim inadequately pleaded.
Michael Peace, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was denied appointed counsel. The court also found that his amendment did not adequately state a Bane Act claim; the opinion does not expressly state a separate dismissal.
What happened
Peace v. Wu involved Michael Peace’s request for appointed counsel and an amendment to his complaint. The court had previously explained that a claim under California’s Bane Act required allegations about presenting and rejecting a claim to the state, interference through threats, intimidation, or coercion, and a request for the court to hear the state-law claim alongside the federal claims.
Peace’s amendment identified when his claim was presented and rejected, but the court said it did not request supplemental jurisdiction or allege the required interference. Peace also said a jail video would show excessive force. The court explained that the parties—not the court—must gather and present evidence, and pointed him to procedures for requesting the video and to discovery rules if necessary.
Judge Susan Illston denied Peace’s request for appointed counsel because the facts and legal issues appeared straightforward and Peace had adequately presented his claims without a lawyer. The court also stated that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under the Bane Act.
The detailed version
- Peace v. Wu · No. 3:21-cv-01227
- Susan Illston
- May 17, 2021
Background
Michael Peace asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him. The court also addressed an amendment to his complaint. In an earlier order, the court had explained that Peace had not adequately pleaded a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1, commonly called the Bane Act, partly because the complaint did not allege compliance with California’s claims-presentation requirement. The court gave him thirty days to amend if he had complied with that requirement.
Appointment of Counsel
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. The court considers both the apparent likelihood of success and the plaintiff’s ability to explain his claims without a lawyer, taking into account the complexity of the legal issues. Judge Susan Illston found no exceptional circumstances. She stated that the facts were relatively simple, the legal claims appeared straightforward, and Peace had adequately explained his claims while proceeding without a lawyer. The court therefore DENIED the request for appointment of counsel, Docket No. 6.
Amended Complaint
Peace filed what he called an “amendment complaint,” but it only identified the dates on which his claim was presented and rejected. The court stated that the amendment failed to state a claim for relief because it did not ask the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim and did not allege facts showing that one or more defendants interfered, through threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment of state or federal constitutional or statutory rights.
Evidence and Discovery
Peace also stated that a video of the event would show excessive force. The court explained that it does not investigate for the parties or develop their evidence. It directed Peace to contact the jail about the procedures for obtaining copies of videos made there. The court stated that, if a simple request did not obtain the information, he could use discovery tools under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37.
Disposition
The opinion expressly denies the request for appointed counsel. It also states that the amendment fails to state a claim, but the text provided does not expressly state a separate dismissal of the amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.