Chambers v. Deputies in County et al

- 1 - 26cv377
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
PARRISH JUAN CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTIES IN COUNTY and SAN
DIEGO SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00377-BAS-VET
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(ECF No. 3)
Plaintiff Parrish Juan Chambers seeks appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3.) Unlike
criminal defendants, prisoners and indigents in civil actions have no constitutional right to
counsel unless their physical liberty is at stake. 	Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452
U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Whether a court appoints counsel for indigent litigants is within the
court's discretion. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
In civil cases, counsel should be appointed only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id.
To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court should evaluate two
factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the
Case 3:26-cv-00377-BAS-VET Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

- 2 - 26cv377
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 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues involved.
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither factor is dispositive, and
both must be evaluated together. Id. Further, an attorney cannot be forced to represent an
indigent litigant in a civil case—rather, the attorney can only be “appointed” if he or she
voluntarily accepts the appointment. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa,
490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) (holding that the appointment of counsel provision in § 1915,
formerly found in subsection (d), does not “authorize[ ] a federal court to require an
unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case”).
Here, Plaintiff moves for the court to appoint pro bono counsel on the basis that he
is incarcerated. Unfortunately, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish
exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 	See
Driver v. Kern Cnty. Superior Ct., No. 220CV1665JAMKJNP, 2022 WL 379243, at *1
(E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2022). In addition, the case is in beginning stages and the Court is unable
to determine the likelihood of success at this stage. Jones v. Brennan, No. 18-CV-07569-
HSG, 2019 WL 1925495, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019)
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono
counsel. (ECF No. 3.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 5, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00377-BAS-VET Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2