Rios v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Department
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-09465
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rios v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Dept., Judge Freeman granted Rios more time to file a complaint and fee-waiver application but denied appointed counsel.
Eric Zaragoza Rios was given additional time to file the required complaint and fee-waiver application but was denied appointed counsel. The Contra Costa Sheriff's Department remained the named defendant; the court did not reach the merits of the proposed claims.
What happened
Rios v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Dept. began when Eric Zaragoza Rios, representing himself, submitted a handwritten document that was treated as an attempt to bring a civil-rights case. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California, where the court told him to file a formal complaint and either pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it upfront.
The court gave Rios 28 more days to file the complaint and a complete application to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront. It denied his request for a lawyer because he had not shown unusual circumstances that would justify appointing one. The order warned that failing to file the required documents on time would result in dismissal without prejudice and without further notice.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on February 3, 2022. The order addressed filing requirements and appointed counsel, not whether Rios's civil-rights claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Rios v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Department · No. 5:21-cv-09465
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 3, 2022
Background
Eric Zaragoza Rios filed a three-page handwritten document in the Eastern District of California. The court construed it as an attempt to bring a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself, against the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The Eastern District transferred the matter to the Northern District of California as the proper venue.
The Clerk then instructed Rios to file a complaint using the court's form and either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the full fee upfront. Rios responded with a letter saying that he wanted to make partial payments, needed more time to obtain counsel, and needed additional time to file the required documents.
Rulings
The court construed Rios's letter as a request for an extension of time and granted that request. It ordered him to file a proper complaint and a complete application to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront within 28 days from the filing date of the order. The court explained that a complete application was necessary to establish his inability to pay the entire fee upfront.
The court denied Rios's request for appointed counsel. It stated that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to counsel unless losing the case could result in the loss of physical liberty. It also explained that appointment of counsel for an eligible person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is discretionary and requires exceptional circumstances. The court found that Rios had not identified circumstances meeting that standard.
The court warned that failing to file the complaint and application within the allowed time would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice.
Classification and scope
This was a procedural order. The court did not decide the merits of Rios's proposed civil-rights claims. It granted additional time for required filings and denied appointed counsel. Although the order's title refers to an application to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront, the body of the order grants more time to file that application rather than ruling that the application itself was approved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.