Vernacchio v. Davis

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOHN F. VERNACCHIO, Case No. 19-cv-07171-SI 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 8 v. COUNSEL 9 RON DAVIS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 28 10 Defendants. 11 Plaintiff requests that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district court 12 || has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil 13 |} litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 14 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 3 15 || the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 16 || See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on 3 17 a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment 18 || of counsel are not evident. Plaintiff stated cognizable claims regarding his discharge from a prison 19 || job, but the court cannot at this time determine the likelihood of success on the merits because 20 || defendants have not yet made their position known. Plaintiff adequately articulated his claims pro 21 || se and the claims are not particularly complex. Since filing this action, plaintiff has been released 22 || from prison; in the free world, he has better access to resources to learn more about prosecuting his 23 || claims and to prepare for defendants’ motion for summary judgment expected to be filed in January 24 || 2021. For these reasons, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 28. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: December 4, 2020 Site WU tee 27 28 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge