From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Cal. Dep't of Water Res.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 29, 2018
No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS

08-29-2018

ELISE KING, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

The court previously denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, and granted her thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff now requests the court reconsider its order denying her motion for appointment of counsel and grant her thirty additional days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 7.

As previously explained to plaintiff, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) authorizes the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, there is no indication that this employment discrimination action presents novel or complex issues. Further, plaintiff's likelihood of success or the degree of plaintiff's ability to articulate her claims do not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the court will grant plaintiff's request for a thirty-day extension of time to file. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file her amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or follow court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. DATED: August 29, 2018.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

King v. Cal. Dep't of Water Res.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 29, 2018
No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2018)
Case details for

King v. Cal. Dep't of Water Res.

Case Details

Full title:ELISE KING, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 29, 2018

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2018)