Kimber v. Harker

Opinion

BART D. KIMBER, from EEOC Case No.: 21-cv-1487-BTM-WVG and OFO Appeal No. 2019005521 ORDER DENYING REQUEST Plaintiff, FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. COUNSEL AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN THOMAS W. HARKER, Acting Secretary, Department of the

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