Tamrat v. Rhodes

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HERMAN TAMRAT, Case No. 20-cv-01323-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. APPOINT COUNSEL; GRANTING EXTENSION 10 ERICK RHODES, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 41 Defendants. 11

12 13 This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a prisoner. Plaintiff has filed a motion 14 to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. 15 Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may 16 "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as 17 plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to 18 make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 19 296, 310 (1989). 20 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an 21 indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires 22 an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the 23 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 24 involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented 25 his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint 26 counsel (Docket No. 38) is DENIED. 27 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that defendants’ request for an 1 motion by August 18, 2021. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 13, 2021 4 5 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27