Opinion
3:24-cv-05455-LK-BAT
06-24-2024
JUNAID RAMSEY HALL, Plaintiff, v. ILENE ANDERSON, et al., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - DKT. 9
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint on June 10, 2024, and on June 21, 2024, filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 9.
There is generally no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff contends the Court should appoint counsel because he cannot afford to hire counsel and each of the lawyers he contacted declined to take his case. These reasons apply to most requests for appointment of counsel and therefore are not exceptional circumstances. The complaint filed demonstrates Plaintiff has the ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. The complaint alleges Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights by failing to adequately treat Plaintiff's mental health issues. The allegations do not appear at this point to involve complex facts or law and it too early in the action to determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Appointment of counsel is thus not presently justified, and the Court ORDERS:
1. The motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 5, is DENIED.
2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.