Karyl Clarke v. Budget Suites of America, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 KARYL CLARKE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00422-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 BUDGET SUITES OF AMERICA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 92. 11 As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social 12 Services of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th 13 Cir. 1981). Under “exceptional circumstances” a court may appoint counsel for indigent civil 14 litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 15 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining 16 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 17 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 18 of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 19 The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish the extraordinary circumstances to support 20 appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s lack of legal knowledge and comprehension do not rise to the 21 level of exceptional circumstances. Zamaro v. Moonga, 656 F. App’x 297, 299 (9th Cir. 2016). 22 And, “the Constitution does not require the elimination of all economic, intellectual, and 23 technological barriers to litigation.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 24 Perez v. Nash, Case No. 21-cv-00075-RFB-VCF; see also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 25 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 In Newton v. Wintersteen, Case No. 2:16-cv-01705-RFB-PAL, 2017 WL 3469270, *2 (D. 27 Nev. Aug. 9, 2017), Judge Leen explained, 1 The court appreciates that it is difficult for pro se parties to litigate their claims and that almost every pro se party would benefit from representation by counsel. 2 However, the court cannot require counsel to accept representation on a pro bono basis, and the number of attorneys available to accept a pro bono appointment is very 3 small. 4 Because this is the reality under which the Court must operate, appointment of counsel in 5 this case, at this time, is unwarranted. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of 7 Counsel (ECF No. 92) is DENIED. 8 DATED this 3rd day of April, 2026.

10 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27