Roberto Otero v. World’s Biggest Gift Shop

Opinion

* * *

ROBERTO OTERO, Case No. 2:25-cv-01329-MMD-EJY

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff’s Motion asserts that counsel should be appointed because he lacks resources to be on equal footing with World’s Biggest Gift Shop. As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Under “exceptional circumstances” a court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). 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.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish the extraordinary circumstances to support appointment of counsel. The lack of adequate legal knowledge, even assuming a case is legally complex, is not an exceptional circumstance “in light of the legal competence of most prisoners in similar situations.” Zamaro v. Moonga, 656 F. App’x 297, 299 (9th Cir. 2016). And, “the Constitution does not require the elimination of all economic, intellectual, and technological barriers to litigation.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989). See also Perez v. Cir. 1990) (finding that prisoner litigants’ lack of a legal education does not constitute exceptional circumstances). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 23) is DENIED. DATED this 5th day of March, 2025. ELA J. YOUGHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE oll 1]