Johnson v. Davis
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Davis, Judge Davila denied Paul Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice because the case remained stayed pending an appeal.
Paul David Johnson’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying civil-rights case remained stayed.
What happened
In Johnson v. Davis, Paul David Johnson, representing himself, brought a civil-rights case alleging that defendants helped transfer prisoners to San Quentin State Prison, causing a COVID-19 outbreak.
The case was stayed while defendants appealed an order concerning immunity in a related matter. Johnson asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing imminent danger and requesting compassionate release and a jury trial.
Judge Edward Davila denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, finding that appointing counsel was not appropriate while the case remained stayed and the appeal was pending.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Davis · No. 5:21-cv-01693
- Edward Davila
- July 6, 2023
Background
Paul David Johnson’s self-represented civil-rights case alleges that the defendants were involved in transferring more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison around May 26, 2020. The transfer allegedly resulted in a COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin. The court had found Johnson’s claims legally cognizable and ordered service on August 4, 2022.
The court had said it would issue a schedule for summary-judgment or other case-ending motions after common issues were resolved in a related matter. In that matter, Judge Orrick ruled that the defendants were not entitled to qualified or other immunity. The defendants appealed, and Johnson’s case was stayed while that appeal remained pending.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Johnson moved for appointment of counsel on June 23, 2023. He stated that he was in “imminent danger,” requested compassionate release under California Penal Code section 1170, and asked the court to schedule a jury trial so he could pursue the case before his anticipated death within six months, as estimated by doctors.
The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may ask a lawyer to represent an indigent litigant in “exceptional circumstances.” That determination considers both the 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.
Ruling
Judge Edward Davila concluded that appointing counsel was not appropriate at that time because the defendants’ appeal was still pending and Johnson’s case remained stayed. The court DENIED without prejudice Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. The opinion did not decide the merits of Johnson’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.