Opinion
CASE NO. C13-5729 BHS
11-13-2013
CHRISTINE D. HAUCK, Plaintiff, v. PHILLIP D. WALKER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 4).
There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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 her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to show that exceptional circumstances exist. The issues appear to be straight forward unlawful search and excessive force claims and, based on her complaint, Plaintiff should be able to articulate her claims. If the circumstances change or the Court finds that Plaintiff requires the assistance of counsel, the Court may reconsider this decision. At this time, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not require the assistance of counsel. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
__________________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge