Ralon v. Kaiser Permanente Hospital

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DOMITILA PELAEZ RALON, 7 Case No. 23-cv-03344-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPOINT COUNSEL KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 10 INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 60 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to appoint pro bono counsel (“Motion”). The 14 Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 15 There is no right to counsel in a civil case. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the 16 Court is authorized to appoint an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel under 17 “exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1); United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 794 18 (9th Cir. 1965). To appoint counsel under this section, the Court must find that a party is unable 19 to afford counsel, that is, that they qualify for in forma pauperis status, and that they meet the 20 “exceptional circumstances” requirement. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 21 evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to 22 articulate [their] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. 23 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 24 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 25 reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d).” Id. 26 This Court has already found that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, satisfying 27 the financial need aspect of the Court’s analysis. Therefore, the remaining and dispositive 1 circumstances” to warrant the appointment of counsel. At this early stage of the case, it is not 2 || clear whether Plaintiff’s claims have sufficient substantive merit to justify appointment of pro 3 bono counsel. The Court also cannot determine whether the appointment of counsel might be 4 || warranted based on the complexity of the legal or factual issues raised in the case. Therefore, 5 || Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the 6 || request at a later stage of the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 16, 2024 10 J PH C. SPERO 11 nited States Magistrate Judge a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28