Mehmood v. Sarani

Filing 67

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

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