Nicole v. T2M Investments, LLC

Opinion

SYLVIA NICOLE, No. 1:24-cv-00562-JLT BAP No. EC‐24‐1032 Appellant, Bk. No. 21‐10679 Adv. No. 21‐01015 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO T2M INVESTMENTS, LLC, APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. 3) Appellee. Sylvia Nicole appeals a decision entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California in Case No. 21-10679 - Adversary Case No. 21-01015-A. The appeal, initiated May 10, 2024 (see Doc. 1), is not yet ripe for decision. Prior to noticing this appeal, Ms. Nicole filed a motion to appoint counsel in the underlying adversary proceeding, which the Bankruptcy Court transferred to the undersigned for resolution because it is unclear whether the Bankruptcy Court has authority to address such a motion. (Doc. 3.) As the Bankruptcy Court indicated in its order transferring the motion (Doc. 3 at 1), the authority for this Court to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but the Court may do so only in “exceptional circumstances.” See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Sariol v. Fitzgerald, No. C16-0835JLR, 2016 WL 8808819, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 27, 2016) (applying “exceptional circumstances” standard to request for counsel in bankruptcy appeal to district court). “When determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Ms. Nicole has made no showing as to the merits of her case or why she is unable to articulate her claims pro se. To the contrary, the “statement of issues” attached to the request for counsel, which is 23 items long, is clearly articulated and detailed. Ud. at 4-6.) Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. Nicole’s motion to appoint counsel. | Dated: _ June 15, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE