In case you were wondering how Allen McCloskey's lawsuit against HCSO and DHHS for ICWA violations, malicious prosecution and other causes of action is faring in federal court, you can check out the filings and developments. Judge Robert M. Illman found Humboldt County's motion to dismiss as moot.
McCloskey's motion to appoint counsel was denied. I have posted the entire text of the ruling. Judge Illman wrote, At this time, the court does not find that any exceptional circumstances exist which would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. Without passing judgment as to the likelihood of success of Plaintiffs' claims, the court finds that Plaintiffs have been able to articulate their claims adequately in light of the relative complexity of the issues involved."
Who knows how long this will drag on? McCloskey has time to waste; so does the County. Once again the County is wasting hundreds of taxpayer dollars on legal costs. Twenty years watching the same players battle in Humboldt while the rest of Humboldt suffers from twenty years of idiots in charge and their cronies and enablers keep getting rich.
I am not reporting on every filing. The final outcome and any significant ruling matters.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/1:2023cv01699/410880%3famp
https://casetext.com/case/mccloskey-v-humboldt-cnty-sheriffs-dept
23-cv-01699-RMI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2023)
23-cv-01699-RMI
04-20-2023
ALLEN D. MCCLOSKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ROBERT M. ILLMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 9
ROBERT M. ILLMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel in a civil case. (Dkt. 9). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that the motion to appoint counsel is appropriate for decision without oral argument, and that the matter can be decided on the papers.
Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N.C. , 452 U.S. 18 (1981). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 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 her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id.
At this time, the court does not find that any exceptional circumstances exist which would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. Without passing judgment as to the likelihood of success of Plaintiffs' claims, the court finds that Plaintiffs have been able to articulate their claims adequately in light of the relative complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel at this juncture is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Previous posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/05/since-posting-of-your-story-we-have.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/04/hcso-and-dhhs-file-notice-to-remove.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/04/i-have-taken-liberty-of-copying.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/03/allen-mccloskey-sues-hcso-and-dhhs-for.html?m=1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.