Charles J. Bicking IV v. Grass Valley School District, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES J. BICKING IV, No. 2:26-cv-2011 TLN AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GRASS VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 3. In civil cases, 19 a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex Rel. Gardner 20 v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of counsel 21 should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining whether “exceptional 22 circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 23 ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 24 involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 26 circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. 27 Plaintiff’s case is not overly complex, and he has shown himself capable of making filings with 28 the court. Appointment of counsel therefore is not appropriate. The motion to appoint counsel 1 || (ECF No. 3) is accordingly DENIED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || DATED: June 3, 2026 “ 4 AMten—Clone ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28