Filho v. Mercy Housing California XVII, LP

Opinion

1 2 3 6 ROBERTO FILHO, 7 Case No. 24-cv-03316-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XVII, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 LP, Re: Dkt. No. 49 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has requested that the Court appoint counsel to 14 represent him in this action in light of his traumatic brain injury and cognitive brain disorder. The 15 Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s impairments may present a significant challenge to Plaintiff in 16 maintaining this action and is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s situation. Nonetheless, litigants in civil 17 cases do not have a right to appointed representation, and the resources available to appoint 18 counsel to represent pro se litigants are extremely limited. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 19 not demonstrated that appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted. 20 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court is authorized to appoint an attorney to represent 21 any person unable to afford counsel under “exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1); 22 United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 1965). “A finding of exceptional 23 circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 24 ability of the petitioner to articulate [their] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 25 issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting 26 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and 27 both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1 Arguably, the second factor favors appointment of counsel as Plaintiff's cognitive 2 || impairment may make it difficult for Plaintiff to articulate his claims. On the other hand, it is not 3 apparent from the current record that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits on his claims. 4 || Considering both facts together, the Court concludes that the “exceptional case requirement” is not 5 met here and therefore, that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff may 6 || renew his request at a later stage of the case, after the record has been further developed and the 7 Court has ruled on Defendant’s summary judgment motion. 8 Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 10 11 Dated: September 25, 2025 a € JQSEPH C. SPERO 13 nited States Magistrate Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28