Background
Lisa Perez filed a pro se action under Section nineteen hundred eighty-three against Officer Larry Lorman of the Colusa Police Department. She alleged that Lorman violated her Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force during her arrest in February two thousand sixteen. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lorman, and judgment was entered accordingly. Perez appealed the district court’s denial of her motion for appointment of counsel, the admission of her criminal conviction for impeachment, and the exclusion of rebuttal evidence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of counsel for abuse of discretion, noting that appointment is only permitted under exceptional circumstances where the litigant cannot articulate claims pro se. The court found Perez failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or likely success on the merits. Regarding the conviction evidence, the court held that under Federal Rule of Evidence six hundred nine, such evidence must be admitted in civil cases unless Rule four zero three exclusion applies, and Perez offered no argument that prejudice outweighed probative value. Finally, the court affirmed the exclusion of rebuttal evidence because Perez forfeited review by failing to challenge the district court’s finding that the evidence would waste time under Rule four zero three.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that indigent civil litigants face a high bar for obtaining appointed counsel and that appellate courts will not consider issues not distinctly raised in opening briefs.