Gaines v. De La Fuente

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JACOBI GAINES, Case No. 23-cv-05386-RMI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 22 10 K. DE LA FUENTE, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. The Court ordered service and is waiting for a dispositive motion from Defendant. Presently 15 pending is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint advisory counsel to help prepare for trial. 16 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social 17 Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may “request” that counsel represent 18 a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that 19 does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United 20 States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 21 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent 22 litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of 23 both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 24 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 25 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented his claims adequately, and the issues are not 26 complex. There are no pending motions, and it is premature to prepare for trial. The motion (dkt. 27 22) is DENIED without prejudice. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: June 25, 2024 3 4 R@BERT M. ILLMAN 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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