Barela v. Tualla
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-02940
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Barela v. Tualla, Judge Donato denied David Barela’s request for appointed counsel because no exceptional circumstances were shown.
David Edward Barela, whose request for court-appointed counsel was denied.
What happened
In Barela v. Tualla, David Barela, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil case.
The court explained that people generally do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases. It also said a lawyer may be appointed in exceptional circumstances, but Barela’s legal and factual issues were not unusually complex, and he had not shown that his physical disabilities or health issues prevented him from handling the case himself.
Judge Donato denied Barela’s request for appointment of counsel. The order addressed only the request for a lawyer, not the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Barela v. Tualla · No. 3:21-cv-02940
- James Donato
- June 1, 2021
Background
David Edward Barela, a self-represented plaintiff, requested appointment of counsel. The opinion identifies the request as Docket No. 3 and describes Barela as a pro se plaintiff.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may appoint counsel for civil litigants in exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not present. It determined that the legal and factual issues were not unusually complex. Although Barela may have physical disabilities and health issues, the court found that he had not shown he was incapable of litigating the case on his own.
Disposition
The court denied Barela’s request for appointment of counsel. This order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.