Michele Suppes v. Herman Jeff Hermanson, et al.

Opinion

MICHELE SUPPES, Case No.: 26cv4169-LL-MSB

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

HERMAN JEFF HERMANSON, et al., [ECF Nos. 3, 6, 9] Defendants. Before the Court are Plaintiff Michele Suppes’s three motions requesting the appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 3, 6, 9. On July 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint against ten individuals that she describes as her estranged husband and his relatives. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that her two minor children “were removed from Santa Clara County, CA and re-located to New York State in the middle of a child custody case – due to a wrongful move away order” that was not approved by herself or a court. Id. at 20. She also alleges that Defendants took possession of her home in San Diego County and her personal property within it. Id. at 20– 22. Plaintiff alleges that the basis of jurisdiction for this case is federal question jurisdiction based on “federal felony crimes in the USA.” Id. at 14. In the complaint, Plaintiff does not list causes of action but instead asks the Court, “Can you please take on this case and investigate this case as soon as you can?” Id. at 25. She also asks the Court, “Can you please sue all of the Hermanson and Levit family members because I was made broke with all of the thefts and tax evasion charges against my social security [number] in this case.” Id. Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court to investigate who has her missing phone and who made charges on her missing credit card. Id. at 28, 30. In her requests for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states that despite her efforts, she has been unable to find an attorney to take her case and that she has minimal assets. ECF Nos. 3 at 6; 9 at 4. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court has discretion in “exceptional circumstances” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist requires consideration of both (1) a plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits” and (2) whether the [plaintiff] “is unable to articulate [her] claims in light of the complexity of the issues involved.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; see also Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015); see Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. The Court finds Plaintiff’s current circumstances are insufficient to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” required to justify appointment of counsel. Upon review of the complaint, the Court is not convinced that it has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not articulated any causes of action and the Court cannot discern any that would qualify as federal question jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff does not appear able to articulate her claims, the Court also finds Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is low if there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, it is too early to determine if Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits when only the complaint is before the Court and with no arguments or evidence demonstrating Plaintiff will prevail. See Garcia v. Smith, 10-cv1187-AJB (RBB), 2012 WL 2499003, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (denying motion for appointment of counsel when it was too early to determine whether any of plaintiff's claims would survive a motion for summary judgment). Therefore, in making required considerations, the Court finds Plaintiff's situation does not rise to ““exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, □□□□□□□□□□□ requests for appointment of counsel are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated: August 21, 2026 NO DE Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge