YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Dkt. No. 35.)
In contrast to criminal proceedings, there generally is no constitutional right to counsel in civil actions. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) ("There is normally . . . no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case."). In proceedings in forma pauperis, the Court has the statutory power only to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This decision of whether to request counsel is within the discretion of the district court and is "granted only in exceptional circumstances." See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). Deciding whether "exceptional circumstances" exist requires an evaluation of the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Although the Court is sympathetic to plaintiff's current condition, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is unable to determine whether the exceptional circumstances required for requesting counsel are present here. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is
The Court advises plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is available in the Clerk's office or through the Court's website, http://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se.
The Court also advises plaintiff that additional assistance may be available by making an appointment with the Legal Help Center.
This Order Terminates Docket Number 35.