Cervantes v. Elsen

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ADRIAN L. CERVANTES, Case No. 23-cv-00811-AMO (PR)

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 v.

7 DALIZU ELSEN, et al., Defendants. 8

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

13 14

16 & 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 been served and defendants’ dispositive motion has been filed.