Cook v. Torres
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-01370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cook v. Torres, Judge Hamilton denied David L. Cook’s motion to appoint counsel for a settlement conference because he could present his claims and the issues were not complex.
David L. Cook’s request for appointed counsel was denied. The opinion states that a settlement conference was scheduled, but it does not state its outcome.
What happened
In Cook v. Torres, David L. Cook, a former county detainee and current federal prisoner, brought a civil-rights case under federal law without a lawyer. The court had previously granted the defendants’ request for judgment in part and denied it in part, and a settlement conference was scheduled.
Cook asked the court to appoint a lawyer for that conference. The court explained that people generally do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases and that courts may ask, but cannot force, a lawyer to represent someone who cannot afford one. Appointment is limited to exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims given the legal issues’ complexity.
The court concluded that Cook could present his claims adequately and that the issues were not complex, so it denied the motion to appoint counsel. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on October 13, 2021.
The detailed version
- Cook v. Torres · No. 4:19-cv-01370
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 13, 2021
Background
David L. Cook, identified as a former county detainee and current federal prisoner, was pursuing a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The opinion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment had been granted in part and denied in part, and that a settlement conference was scheduled. Cook moved to have counsel appointed for the settlement conference.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Although a court may request that a lawyer represent a person proceeding without payment of court fees, it does not have authority to force a lawyer to accept the appointment. Under Ninth Circuit law, a court may ask counsel to represent a person who cannot afford a lawyer only in “exceptional circumstances.” The court must consider both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues.
Ruling
The court concluded that Cook could present his claims adequately and that the issues were not complex. It therefore denied Cook’s motion to appoint counsel, identified as Docket No. 149. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on October 13, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.