(PS) Hanible v. County of Solano Sheriff's Office

Opinion

BRIHANA HANIBLE, No. 2:21-cv-1315 TLN DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER OFFICE, et al., Defendants, Plaintiff Brihana Hanible is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 30, 2023, plaintiff filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 52 & 53.) Plaintiff, however, has already paid the applicable filing fee. Moreover, plaintiff is informed that federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the federal in forma pauperis statute, but only under exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his or her claims. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, at this time, the undersigned cannot find that the exceptional circumstances test has been satisfied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's January 30, 2023 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 52) is denied; and 2. Plaintiffs January 30, 2023 motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 53) is denied without prejudice to renewal. Dated: March 1, 2023 -BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/hanible1315.aoc.den.ord