Hernandez v. I.S.U.

Background

Joseph Hernandez, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison. The complaint alleges that officers Kaufman, McBride, Townsend, and Bradbury violated his due-process rights by placing him in administrative segregation based on unreliable evidence. It also alleges that officer Lacy retaliated against him by refusing to conduct an unbiased investigation of a grievance after Hernandez named Lacy in a staff complaint and a federal civil-rights action.

Hernandez requested appointment of counsel. He argued that he could not afford counsel, that the case was complex, and that he faced difficulties involving legal research, access to his legal property, discovery, factual investigation, and possible conflicting testimony. The defendants opposed the request and argued that Hernandez had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for appointment of counsel in the Ninth Circuit.

Legal standard

The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In the Ninth Circuit, appointment is reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” The court must consider both the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues.

The court also explained that a need for discovery, limited law-library access, unfamiliarity with legal rules, or the fact that a person would benefit from a lawyer does not automatically establish exceptional circumstances.

Analysis and ruling

The court denied Hernandez’s request for lack of exceptional circumstances. It found that inability to afford counsel, limited legal knowledge, and difficulties developing the factual record were not enough. The court did not find the case legally or factually complex. At that stage, only the complaint had been filed and screened, so it was unclear whether Hernandez would succeed on the merits or whether the case would require the extensive discovery he described.

The court found that Hernandez had so far presented his claims, developed the record, and litigated the action effectively despite his lack of access to some legal property, limited law-library access, and transfer from Pelican Bay State Prison. The court stated that these access problems could justify extensions of filing deadlines but did not require appointment of counsel. It also found that the possible need for a jury trial, conflicting testimony, and credibility determinations did not require counsel at that time because it was unclear whether the case would reach trial.

The court DENIED Hernandez’s request for appointment of counsel. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances require it, including if the case proceeds to trial. The order terminated Docket No. 22.