Scalant v. Enrico

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALBERTO ERICK SCALANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT ENRICO,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-04516-RFL
ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 24
Alberto Scalant, a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The sole Defendant in this case filed a motion for summary judgment on
November 14, 2025. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition but did file a motion to
appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 24.)
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social
Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Although district courts may “request” that counsel represent a
litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis as Plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that
does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v.
United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989).
The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent
litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation
of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935
F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
Here, Plaintiff argues that this case is complex, and he will have difficulty prosecuting
the action due to his confinement. (Dkt. No. 24 at 1.) These circumstances are not sufficiently
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 26 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
“exceptional” to warrant appointment of counsel at this time. The Court determines that this
action does not present complex legal issues, and Plaintiff has ably prosecuted this case and
several other actions in this Court. It is too early in this litigation for the Court to determine the
likelihood of success on the merits. The motion is denied without prejudice.
By February 5, 2026, Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. The motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 22) to remove his incorrectly filed motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED, and the Court and the parties will review the properly filed motion.
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for an
extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 26 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2