Hawthorne v. Kernan

Background

Carlos A. Hawthorne, an inmate at California Medical Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He told the court that he had been transferred to the facility on or about March 7, 2022, placed in administrative segregation, and denied access to his property and the law library. He also stated that he was allowed access to his property only every thirty days.

Hawthorne asked for appointment of counsel and a 120-day extension to respond to defendant Swensen’s motions and declarations. He argued that he needed counsel because he relied on legal self-help manuals, had to handwrite his filings, lacked work tools and legal materials, and needed assistance with research, confidential documents, evidence, and court deadlines.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that people generally have no right to a lawyer in civil cases, but that it may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant when “exceptional circumstances” exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court considered both Hawthorne’s likelihood of success and his ability to explain his claims without a lawyer, together with the complexity of the legal issues.

The court found that Hawthorne’s likelihood of success was uncertain, but that he had explained his claims effectively despite the difficulties he described. It also found that the legal issues did not appear unusually complex and that his lack of access to legal materials appeared temporary. The court further stated that relying on legal self-help manuals and handwriting pleadings did not establish exceptional circumstances, and that it had already found that Hawthorne stated legally recognizable claims.

The court denied Hawthorne’s request for appointment of counsel. It stated that the denial was without prejudice to the court’s later appointment of counsel if circumstances require it.

Extension of Time

The court denied as moot Hawthorne’s request for an extension of time to oppose Swensen’s motion. The court noted that it had already denied Swensen’s motion to dismiss and had ordered defendants to file a dispositive motion by May 6, 2022, concerning the four remaining claims.

Disposition

The order denied the request for appointment of counsel and denied as moot the request for an extension of time. It terminated Docket Nos. 83 and 84. The order did not decide the merits of the remaining claims in the underlying civil-rights action.