Filed: May 04, 2018
Latest Update: May 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION; DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 41 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff's request for an extension (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may have until June 4, 2018, to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has also filed another motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 , 25 (1981), and a
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION; DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 41 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff's request for an extension (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may have until June 4, 2018, to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has also filed another motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 , 25 (1981), and al..
More
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION; DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 41
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff's request for an extension (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may have until June 4, 2018, to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff has also filed another motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989).
The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant 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 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
