Opinion
Case No. 1:06-cv-00289 ALA (P).
October 16, 2008
ORDER
Before this Court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 29). In his motion, Plaintiff declares that he cannot afford to retain counsel, and that he requires counsel because he has extremely poor literacy skills and has little experience with legal research. (Id.).
A district court may, in its discretion, "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In § 1983 cases brought by indigent litigants, "[c]ounsel should only be appointed in exceptional circumstances, based on such factors as the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims in light of their complexity." Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Where the only difficulties the plaintiff shows "are difficulties which any litigant would have in proceeding pro se," appointment of counsel is not warranted. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335. Appointment is also disfavored where "compelling evidence against [the plaintiff] mak[es] it extremely unlikely that he w[ill] succeed on the merits." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
This Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case because the likelihood of Plaintiff succeeding on the merits is negligible. Moreover, the expressed difficulties Plaintiff faces, in terms of comprehending and researching the legal issues, are common among pro se litigants. Finally, a review of the record reflects that Plaintiff has consistently articulated his requests and arguments adequately.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an appointment of counsel be denied.