Collins v. Repp

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00676
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 AMBIBE COLLINS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00676-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v.

9 J. REPP, et al., [Docket No. 15] 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Docket No. 15. 12 A litigant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue civil rights claims. See 13 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “The court may request1 an attorney 14 to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court will request 15 an attorney for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 16 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The word “exceptional” is defined as “out of the ordinary course, 17 unusual,” or “rare.” See Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press 2015). Representations 18 of an inability to retain counsel, as well as “[c]ircumstances common to most prisoners, such as 19 lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances 20 that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.” E.g., Boyd v. Henry, No. 2:23-cv- 21 01022-CDS-MDC, 2024 WL 4046456, at *5 (D. Nev. May 9, 2024) ((quoting Baker v. Macomber, 22 No. 2:15-cv-00248-TLN-AC, 2020 WL 1182495, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020)). When 23 determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers the plaintiff’s likelihood 24 of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 25

26 1 To be clear, the Court does not “appoint” counsel in civil cases. The law “does not actually authorize the court to force a lawyer to take a case” and the Court does not have “staff 27 attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants.” Chan v. Ryan, 2023 WL 197429, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) (quoting Sifuentes v. Nautilus, Inc., 2022 WL 1014963, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 28 Apr. 5, 2022)). 1} complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. “Neither of these considerations 2|| is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Jd. 3 In this case, Plaintiff's motion indicates only that he cannot afford counsel. See Docket 4 No. 15. An inability to afford counsel is not, standing alone, sufficient for a judicial request for 5], counsel. Moreover, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances based on its own review of 6] the docket. While Plaintiff has stated a colorable claim sufficiently to proceed past the pleading 7| stage, Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated that evidence shows a likelihood to succeed on the merits of that claim. Cf Hucker v. Daub, No. 21-cv-577 JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 2550089, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 9] June 22, 2021) (collecting cases that stating a colorable claim is not, standing alone, sufficient to 10] demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits). Moreover, the claims alleged do not appear to 11] be particularly complex. Lastly, Plaintiff has thus far shown a sufficient ability to articulate claims and arguments without the assistance of counsel. 13 Accordingly, the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: January 28, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe' 17 United States-Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28