Chapman v. San Mateo County
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-09038
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chapman v. San Mateo County, Judge Gilliam granted Chapman’s late-extension request but denied counsel appointment because exceptional circumstances were absent.
Marcel E. Chapman’s requests for additional time and appointed counsel were resolved; the order also affected the ongoing proceedings against San Mateo County.
What happened
In Chapman v. San Mateo County, Marcel E. Chapman, who is incarcerated and representing himself, asked for more time to oppose San Mateo County’s motion and asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The court had previously granted the County’s summary-judgment motion and allowed Chapman to file an amended complaint.
The court retroactively approved Chapman’s extension request and treated his opposition as timely. Chapman said he could not afford a lawyer, faced limitations because of his imprisonment, had limited legal-library access and legal knowledge, and faced complex issues and possible conflicting testimony.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Chapman’s request for appointed counsel because Chapman had not shown exceptional circumstances: the court found he was not likely to succeed on the merits, the issues were not complex, and he had presented his claims effectively. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required, such as if the case proceeded to trial.
The detailed version
- Chapman v. San Mateo County · No. 4:21-cv-09038
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 26, 2023
Background
Marcel E. Chapman, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that the court had previously granted San Mateo County’s motion for summary judgment and allowed Chapman to file an amended complaint. This order addressed two requests: additional time to file Chapman’s opposition and appointment of counsel.
Extension of Time
The court granted Chapman’s request for an extension of time retroactively and deemed his opposition timely filed.
Request for Counsel
Chapman asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He argued that he could not afford counsel, that his imprisonment limited his ability to litigate, that the issues were complex and would require research and investigation, that he had limited access to the law library and limited legal knowledge, and that a trial might involve conflicting testimony. He also stated that he had repeatedly tried but failed to retain an attorney.
In a civil case, appointment of counsel generally is not a right. The court may appoint counsel when “exceptional circumstances” exist. That determination requires considering both the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer, given the complexity of the legal issues.
The court denied Chapman’s request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. It found that Chapman had not shown that he was likely to succeed on the merits, that the legal issues were not complex, and that he had so far presented his claims effectively. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later on its own if circumstances required, including if the case proceeded to trial. The order terminated Docket Nos. 28 and 29.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.