Washington v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-02454
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Washington v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Judge Freeman denied Anthony Washington’s request for appointed counsel because he did not show exceptional circumstances.
Anthony Washington’s request for appointed counsel was denied; the order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
Washington v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation involves Anthony Washington’s civil-rights lawsuit against a prison officer and other defendants, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Washington asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing his lack of money, limited legal knowledge, and an upcoming deposition.
The court denied the request. It explained that people generally do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases and that appointed counsel is reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court found that Washington’s reasons were not exceptional among prisoner plaintiffs.
Judge Beth Freeman issued the order on August 14, 2023, and closed the docket entry concerning the request for appointed counsel. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Washington v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation · No. 5:22-cv-02454
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
Anthony Washington, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included an officer at Salinas Valley State Prison, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the State of California, and the Correctional Peace Officers Association union. The court had ordered the amended complaint served and had given the defendants additional time to file a motion resolving the case.
Washington moved for appointment of counsel, meaning he asked the court to assign a lawyer to represent him. He based the request on indigency, limited legal knowledge, and the need for help with an upcoming deposition.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to counsel in an ordinary civil case unless an indigent person may lose physical liberty if the case is unsuccessful. It also explained that appointing counsel for an indigent litigant in a civil-rights case is discretionary and allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
The court found that Washington’s stated reasons were not exceptional among prisoner plaintiffs. It therefore denied the motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for appointment of counsel and ordered that the docket entry for that motion be terminated. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Washington’s underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.