Opinion
CASE NO. C16-6005 RBL
09-25-2018
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Basra's Motion for appointment of counsel. [Dkt. # 79]. Basra claims that because the court denied (in part) summary judgment [Dkt. # 49], his claims must have merit. He also claims he cannot articulate his claims, which is demonstrably untrue.
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. Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding IFP. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Court will appoint counsel only under "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 (internal quotations omitted). These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on whether to appoint counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id.
Basra has not demonstrated either of the required elements for appointment of counsel. The Motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2018.
/s/_________
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge