Kimber v. Harker

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BART D. KIMBER, from EEOC Case No.: 21-cv-1487-BTM-WVG and OFO Appeal No. 2019005521 10 ORDER DENYING REQUEST 11 Plaintiff, FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. COUNSEL AND DENYING 12 MOTION TO PROCEED IN THOMAS W. HARKER, Acting 13 FORMA PAUPERIS Secretary, Department of the

14 Navy, Agency [ECF NOS. 2, 3] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 3.) There 18 is no right to counsel in civil cases, and district courts may appoint counsel only 19 under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 20 Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both 21 ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 22 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of 23 these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a 24 decision.” Id. 25 Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege employment discrimination but is 26 largely unintelligible. At this point in time, the Court cannot say that there is any 27 likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the Court DENIES without 28 prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 1 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 2 ||moot, as Plaintiff has already paid the required filing fee.! (ECF No. 6.) 3 4 1S SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: November 8, 2021 7 Bay Tid. Mahar 8 Hono ble Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ——__ 27 The Court notes that Plaintiff's application does not make a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required 28 fling fees, as he states that his monthly income is $3,700, that he owns a home valued at $140,000, and that he