ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 14, 18).

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Alan Blow's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 14), and Renewed Request for Appointment of Counsel, ("Counsel Mot.," ECF No. 18).1 The Court previously granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied his initial motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 4.) The Court subsequently denied his amended motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 10.) The Court concluded exercising its limited ability to appoint counsel in a civil case was not appropriate because Plaintiff had not demonstrated "exceptional circumstances." (Id.; see also id. at 3-42 (discussing Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2004), and setting forth the appropriate legal standard for appointment of counsel in civil proceedings).)

In his renewed request, Plaintiff provides an affidavit from Julio Reyes, who is Plaintiff's "caretaker and partner in everything else in life." (Counsel Mot. 2, ECF No. 18.) In general, Mr. Reyes states the following: (1) Mr. Reyes has drafted and assisted Plaintiff with his filings thus far, (id. ¶ 1); (2) Plaintiff has difficulty articulating his claims and gets easily frustrated by complex tasks due to his disabilities, (id. ¶ 2); (3) Plaintiff does not have any formal legal training, (id. ¶ 3); (4) Mr. Reyes is not a lawyer and thus cannot represent Plaintiff, (id. ¶ 4); (5) Plaintiff and Mr. Reyes have unsuccessfully sought legal counsel from other organizations, (id. ¶ 5); (6) Defendants have "vast resources and unlimited budgets" and thus it is unfair for Plaintiff to be unrepresented, (id. ¶ 6); (7) Plaintiff does not understand "the legal terms, citations[,] and jargon" used in the Court's Orders, (id. ¶ 7).

As before, this request still does not demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" warranting an appointment of counsel. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. First, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. This case is in its infancy, and Defendants have recently filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 25.) Second, Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to articulate his claims pro se thus far. In addition to filing the several motions for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff has successfully moved the Court for permission to amend his original Complaint, (see ECF Nos. 22, 23), and Plaintiff successfully filed a response in opposition to Defendants' initial motion to dismiss the original Complaint, (see ECF No. 23), which is replete with case analysis and citations. This renders questionable Plaintiff's claim that he does not understand the "legal terms, citations[,] and jargon" of the Court's Orders. Accordingly, at this time the Court DENIES Plaintiff's pending motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 14, 18).

IT IS SO ORDERED.