Mehmood v. Sarani

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/7/2019 DENYING 66 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YASIR MEHMOOD, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-00970-KJM-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER TABASSUM SARANI, Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff is bringing his civil case as a self-represented litigant proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. I. Motion Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, asserting that he is not of sound mind to be making decisions and cannot assist himself in this litigation. ECF No. 66 at 1. II. Analysis In civil cases, a pro se litigant's right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United 24 States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). 25 “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining 26 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on 27 the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 1 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 2 circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. 3 Plaintiff’s case is not overly complex. See ECF No. 8. The fact that plaintiff does not feel 4 personally able to prosecute his case without the assistance of counsel is not an exceptional 5 circumstance. Appointment of counsel therefore is not appropriate. 6 III. Conclusion 7 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 66) is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: January 7, 2019 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?