From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. United States

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 28, 2021
21-cv-1029-DMS (LL) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-1029-DMS (LL)

06-28-2021

CHRISTINE ANN RUSSELL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DR. LAURA MILLER MD, DR. STACEY CHARAT MD.; DR. ALLYSON DAVIS MD; OTHER INDIVIDUALS, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

DANA M. SABRAW, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. The Court denies the motion for the following reasons. In general, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). In “exceptional circumstances, ” however, a court may exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). At this point, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Russell v. United States

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 28, 2021
21-cv-1029-DMS (LL) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Russell v. United States

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTINE ANN RUSSELL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jun 28, 2021

Citations

21-cv-1029-DMS (LL) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2021)