McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department
- Robert Illman
- 1:23-cv-01699
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, Judge Illman denied plaintiffs’ request to appoint volunteer counsel because no exceptional circumstances were shown.
The plaintiffs’ request for volunteer counsel was denied; the order did not resolve their underlying claims.
What happened
McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department involved the plaintiffs’ request for appointed counsel in their civil case. The court decided the motion on the written submissions without oral argument.
The court explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer. Under the governing statute, a court may seek volunteer counsel for an indigent litigant only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likely success of the claims and the person’s ability to explain the claims given their complexity.
Judge Robert Illman found no exceptional circumstances warranting a pro bono appointment at that stage and denied the request. The court expressly stated that it was not judging the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success.
The detailed version
- McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department · No. 1:23-cv-01699
- Robert Illman
- Apr. 20, 2023
Motion and procedure
The plaintiffs moved to appoint counsel in this civil case. The court found that the motion could be decided without oral argument, based on the written submissions, under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Legal standard
The court stated that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional right to counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may ask a lawyer to represent an indigent litigant only when “exceptional circumstances” exist. 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 court must consider these factors together.
Ruling
The court found that no exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant seeking a volunteer lawyer for a pro bono appointment. The court stated that it was not making a judgment about the likelihood of success of the plaintiffs’ claims. It then denied the request for appointment of counsel “at this juncture.”
Effect of the order
This order decided only the request for appointed counsel. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.