Nair v. Titan Towing

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 6, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02255
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JAYAKRISHNAN K NAIR, Case No. 2:24-cv-02255-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 TITAN TOWING, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 4). 11 The Court considers the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities together with the 12 underlying Complaint (ECF No. 1-2). 13 As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Department of 14 Social Services of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 15 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court has discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint counsel 16 for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 17 (9th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing 18 relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases). When determining 19 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 20 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 21 of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 In his Motion, Plaintiff offers several factors he believes justifies the appointment of counsel 23 in this case, including his underlying mental and physical health conditions, the loss of all his 24 possessions, the complexity of his case, and the fact that he is an immigrant and lacks legal 25 knowledge. ECF No. 4. While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s lack of resources as indicated by 26 his application to proceed in formal pauperis (ECF No. 1), neither a lack of resources nor a desire 27 to ensure justice is best served meet the exceptional circumstances test. Wood v. Housewright, 900 1 || (‘[T]he Constitution does not require the elimination of all economic, intellectual, and technologic 2 || barriers to litigation.”). A review of Plaintiff's Complaint demonstrates to the Court that at 3 || unfamiliarity with the U.S. legal system Plaintiff may have did not prevent him from presentit 4 || detailed and cohesive claims for relief. Further, the facts underlying Plaintiff's Complaint, tl 5 || alleged theft of his vehicles and unlawful eviction from his residence (ECF No. 1-2 at 6-15), aren 6 || so complicated as to rise to the level of exceptional circumstances. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment □ 8 || Counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. 10 Dated this 6th day of December, 2024 1 □ 12 Sarva ACTA A □□

3 UNIT ED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28