Tamrat v. Reid

Opinion

HERMAN TAMRAT, Case No. 20-cv-01324-PJH

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. APPOINT COUNSEL

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendants.

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a prisoner. Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 16) is DENIED. In light of the current public health crisis and difficulties using the law library, plaintiff will be provided an extension to file an amended may result in the dismissal of this action. Dated: July 7, 2020 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge