Bolden v. Allison
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-02059
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bolden v. Allison, Judge Hamilton denied Bolden’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because the case was still at an early stage.
Willie Bolden was not appointed counsel at this stage, although the court left open the possibility of considering appointment later.
What happened
In Bolden v. Allison, Willie Bolden, representing himself, alleged that defendants helped transfer more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin State Prison around May 26, 2020, causing an outbreak. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
The court explained that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer. Appointment may be requested in exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer. The court said it could not yet assess Bolden’s likelihood of success because the case was at an early stage, but found that he had adequately explained his claims.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice and said the court could reconsider appointing counsel later. The order closed the docket entry concerning the motion.
The detailed version
- Bolden v. Allison · No. 5:22-cv-02059
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 14, 2022
Background
Willie Bolden’s pro se civil-rights case alleges that Kathleen Allison and other defendants were involved in transferring more than 100 prisoners from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison around May 26, 2020. Some of the transferred prisoners were infected with COVID-19, and Bolden alleges that the transfer resulted in a COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin. Bolden moved for appointment of counsel.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose physical liberty if the litigation is unsuccessful. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may ask a lawyer to represent an indigent litigant in “exceptional circumstances.” The court must consider both the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, in light of the complexity of the legal issues. The factors must be considered together.
Ruling
The court said it could not determine at that time whether exceptional circumstances existed. The case was at an early stage, making it premature to assess Bolden’s likelihood of success. The court also found that Bolden had adequately explained his claims without a lawyer given the complexity of the issues. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The court stated that this did not prevent it from considering appointment of counsel later, and the order terminated the docket entry for the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.