Adams v. Clark

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HENRY DESEAN ADAMS, Case No. 22-cv-00047-AMO (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

10 SGT. JOSHUA CLARK, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 9 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this pro se prisoner civil rights 13 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an 14 indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of 15 Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). The court may seek counsel to represent an indigent litigant 16 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires 17 an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff 18 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 19 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 20 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a 21 decision on a request for counsel under section 1915. See id. 22 The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which 23 would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are 24 at an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine plaintiff’s likelihood of success on 25 the merits. Moreover, plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of 26 the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 27 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without 1 || prejudice.' 2 This Order terminates Docket No. 9. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: July 5, 2023 5 1. 6 Onscek ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The Court may of course consider appointing of counsel later in the proceedings; that is, 07 after defendants have filed their dispositive motion. At that time, the Court will be in a better position to consider the procedural and substantive matters at issue. Plaintiff may therefore file a 2g || renewed motion for the appointment of counsel after defendants’ dispositive motion has been filed.