Hartley v. Bright
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-00767
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hartley v. Bright, Judge Freeman denied Hartley’s motion to appoint counsel because he did not show exceptional circumstances.
Roger Andrew Hartley was affected because the court denied his request for appointed counsel; the order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Hartley v. Bright, Roger Andrew Hartley, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer against prison officials, medical personnel, and a state health-care director. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer because he has dyslexia.
The court explained that lawyers are appointed for indigent civil litigants only in exceptional circumstances. It found Hartley’s dyslexia allegation unpersuasive because his motion was clearly written and well presented, which did not show that dyslexia had prevented him from actively handling the case.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for appointment of counsel and terminated the motion’s docket entry. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Hartley v. Bright · No. 5:23-cv-00767
- Beth Freeman
- July 21, 2023
Background
Roger Andrew Hartley, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants include prison officials and medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Hartley is confined, and the Director of California Correctional Health Care Services. The court had previously denied Hartley’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and stated that the full filing fee was due by July 28, 2023.
Hartley also moved for appointment of counsel, citing a “learning and communication disability” caused by dyslexia.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is generally no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose physical liberty if the case is unsuccessful. It further explained that requesting counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is within the trial court’s discretion and is allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
Reasoning and ruling
The court found Hartley’s assertion that dyslexia required appointed counsel unpersuasive. It noted that the motion was clearly written and well presented, which did not indicate that dyslexia had hindered Hartley’s ability to actively litigate the matter.
The court therefore denied Hartley’s motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. The order terminated Docket No. 3. It did not resolve the underlying § 1983 claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.