Moreno v. Peffley

Background

Pro se plaintiff Anthony L. Moreno filed a third request for appointment of counsel. He argued that restricted housing had hindered his access to the law library and computers, that a transfer could interfere with access to witnesses and documents, and that prison staff had seized documents and property needed to respond to discovery requests. The defendants opposed the request and submitted declarations and exhibits.

Moreno’s underlying claims concern allegations that defendants falsified evidence connecting him with a prison gang, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations concerning gang validation. The defendants also argued that Moreno had not exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court did not decide whether Moreno had exhausted those remedies or whether his underlying claims would succeed.

Legal standard

The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case unless an indigent person may lose physical liberty if the case is lost. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint counsel for an indigent litigant when exceptional circumstances exist. The court considers the person’s likelihood of success and ability to present the claims in light of the legal issues’ complexity.

The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that Moreno’s claims were not particularly complex and found that he had shown an ability to present them, including by filing an amended complaint that adequately stated claims for relief. Because Moreno had not responded to the defendants’ exhaustion arguments, the court said it was difficult to assess his likelihood of success. The court noted that he could submit grievance records or a declaration when responding to the summary-judgment motion.

Reasons for denying counsel

The court found no basis to conclude that Moreno had been denied necessary legal resources. The defendants’ evidence showed that prisoners in restricted housing could access the central library, legal materials, legal-research computers, printed materials, and other supplies. Records showed that Moreno was scheduled to visit the library eight times during February, March, and April 2024, and visited at least four times. The court also noted that the two occasions Moreno identified as denied access occurred when the library was closed.

The court likewise found no basis to conclude that Moreno lacked access to relevant witnesses or evidence because of his transfer to California State Prison, Solano. The defendants stated that the facility had the same legal resources as the prior facility and that Moreno had not identified any specific witness he needed to oppose summary judgment or pursue his claims.

As to documents and property, the court found no basis to conclude that Moreno had been prevented from accessing them or from complying with discovery requests. The defendants’ evidence indicated that Moreno had received allowable personal and legal property on multiple occasions. Defense counsel also stated that Moreno brought a large stack of documents to his deposition and used them during the deposition.

Rulings

The court found no exceptional circumstances and denied Moreno’s motion for appointment of counsel. The order states: “Mr. Moreno’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.”

The defendants had filed a summary-judgment motion on March 29, 2024. Moreno’s opposition had been due April 26, 2024, but he had not filed one. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi extended the deadline for Moreno to file his opposition to June 3, 2024. The defendants’ reply was due 14 days after Moreno filed his opposition. The order terminated Docket No. 23.