David Alberts v. Broadway Tower Associates, L.P., et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02908
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ALBERTS, Case No.: 25-cv-2908-RSH-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 BROADWAY TOWER ASSOCIATES,

L.P., a California limited partnership, et 15 [ECF No. 5] al.,

16 Defendants. 17

18 On October 28, 2025, plaintiff David Alberts filed a complaint against Defendants 19 and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. On November 20 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, screened the Complaint 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to effectuate 22 service of the Complaint and summons. ECF No. 3. 23 On November 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel, on the grounds 24 that “he lacks the ability to litigate this case without counsel.” ECF No. 5 at 4. 25 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and the decision to appoint 26 counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and 27 is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 28 1 || F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 2 1991) (noting that only “exceptional circumstances” support such a discretionary 3 ||appointment). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the party 4 seeking counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court must 5 consider the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the pro se litigant to 6 || articulate his claims in light of their legal complexity. Jd. 7 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the requisite burden here. Nothing in 8 || Plaintiff's pleading or in his IFP application reflects that he is incapable of articulating the 9 || basis for his claims. Additionally, although Plaintiff's complaint passes screening, neither 10 complaint itself nor Plaintiff’s application as yet demonstrates a likelihood of success 11 the merits. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 12 || counsel [ECF No. 5] without prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: December 2, 2025 , 15 [okut Lowe 16 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28