Loftis v. Romero et al

1
24-cv-1641-CAB-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARQUISE DEANGELO LOFTIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRACIELA ROMERO; BENEDETTO
BRUNETTO,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-1641-CAB-DDL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[Dkt. No. 31]
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Marquise DeAngelo Loftis’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. No. 31. For the reasons stated below, the motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this complaint based on his treatment while incarcerated at Richard
J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that his civil rights were
violated when Defendants Romero and Brunetto failed to place him in appropriate housing
for his mental illness.
Case 3:24-cv-01641-CAB-DDL Document 33 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
24-cv-1641-CAB-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 19, 2026. Dkt. No. 31. He requests
the appointment of counsel because he believes to be at a disadvantage in conducting
discovery, obtaining and presenting expert testimony, engaging in legal analysis, and other
tasks necessary to pursue his claims. Id.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution
Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the Court has discretion to
appoint an attorney to represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional
circumstances.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “That a pro
se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel is not the test.” Okler v.
MCC IMU Prison, No. 3:18-cv-05458-RJB-TLF, 2019 WL 461143, at *1 (W.D. Wash.
Feb. 5, 2019). Instead, the Court “must determine whether a) there is a likelihood of
success on the merits; and b) the [litigant] is unable to articulate his claims in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.
2014). Neither factor “is dispositive; rather they must be considered cumulatively.” Id.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. 	Likelihood of Success
While Plaintiff asserts that his claims are “potentially meritorious,” see Dkt. No. 31
at 3, he does not identify facts that support his chances of success on the merits. No motions
to dismiss were filed, and discovery has just begun. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, there
has been no screening of his case by the Court thus far. Given the early stage of the
proceedings, there is no basis upon which the Court can predict Plaintiff's success at trial.
See Campos v. K.U.S.I. News Media, No. 3:19-cv-01455-BAS-AGS, 2019 WL 4674290,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019) (denying motion to appoint counsel where it “[was] simply
too soon to tell whether he will be likely to succeed on the merits of any potential
Case 3:24-cv-01641-CAB-DDL Document 33 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
24-cv-1641-CAB-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
constitutional claim”). The Court therefore finds that this factor weighs against the
appointment of counsel.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Ability to Pursue his Claims
Plaintiff argues that the cost and complexity of litigating this case warrant the
appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 31 at 4-6. However, the challenges that Plaintiff
describes are common to many self-represented litigants. Conducting discovery, obtaining
and presenting expert testimony, and engaging in legal analysis are typical parts of
litigating a case, and although the Court recognizes the challenges of completing such tasks
without legal training, this hardship does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. See
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-00001-DAD-SAB(PC), 2021 WL 1172777, at *1
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) (“Circumstances common to most [litigants], such as lack of
legal education…do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request
for voluntary assistance of counsel”).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Dkt.
No. 31] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may renew his request if his
situation changes such that he can make the necessary showing that he is both likely to
succeed on the merits of his claims and unable to competently articulate those claims.
Cano, 739 F.3d at 1218.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01641-CAB-DDL Document 33 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
24-cv-1641-CAB-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:24-cv-01641-CAB-DDL Document 33 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4