Filed: Jan. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL JAMES P. DONOHUE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The present matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 15. After careful consideration of the motion, the governing law, and the balance of the record, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff's motion for appoi
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL JAMES P. DONOHUE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The present matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 15. After careful consideration of the motion, the governing law, and the balance of the record, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff's motion for appoin..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The present matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 15. After careful consideration of the motion, the governing law, and the balance of the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 15, is DENIED. No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case unless the plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), this Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court may appoint counsel only on a showing of "exceptional circumstances." Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id.
Here, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. To date, plaintiff has yet to offer evidence to suggest that this case is likely to succeed on the merits. In addition, it is not clear that plaintiff is unable to articulate the legal and factual bases of his claims.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time. Plaintiff will be free to move for appointment of counsel, if necessary, at a later date.
(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.
