James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01044
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 JAMES FAHEY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01044-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v.

9 WALLY’S LAS VEGAS, LLC, et al., [Docket No. 90] 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Docket No. 90. The 12 Court does not require a response or a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 13 A litigant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue civil rights claims. See 14 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “The court may request1 an attorney 15 to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court will request 16 an attorney for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 17 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The word “exceptional” is defined as “out of the ordinary course, 18 unusual,” or “rare.” See Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press 2015). When 19 determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers the plaintiff’s likelihood 20 of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 21 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. “Neither of these considerations 22 is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. 23 Here, the Court is not persuaded that requesting an attorney for Plaintiff is warranted. As 24 a threshold matter, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is “unable to afford counsel” and 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} instant motion makes no substantive effort to meet that standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 2|) Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify appointment 3] of counsel. First, the matters in the case are not complex and Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability 4|| to articulate his claims. See Docket. Plaintiffs submission that he has experienced medical stress 5] directly linked to litigation conduct is unavailing given that the medical visit and documentation regarding stress excused Plaintiff from one day of work. See Docket No. 90 at 12. Second, the 7|| Court cannot conclude that the record shows Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits because 8|| Plaintiffs motion makes no substantive effort to meet that standard. 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Docket 10] No. 90. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 29, 2025 □□ Nancy J. Kopp 14 United States Ma gistrate Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28