ORDER

KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.

The present action was remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions on October 30, 2013. The Court's Order on Mandate (#45) was entered on January 7, 2014. On January 24, 2014, pro se Plaintiff filed an Appeal (#46) of the magistrate judge's order (#44) entered January 6, 2014, denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.1981). However, in "exceptional circumstances," a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.1980). To decide whether these exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both "`the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'" Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)); see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) withdrawn in part on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). While it is true that Plaintiff successfully "participated" in an appeal in this action to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he had appointed pro bono counsel in that effort. The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel due to the likelihood of success on the merits and the serious mental health history of Plaintiff which likely would interfere with his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Appeal (#46);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court officially re-open this action;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CJA Clerk appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff.