(PS)Storman v. U.S. Office of the Secretary

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/20/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION to Appoint Counsel #10 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL D. STORMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

No. 2:17-CV-0976 MCE AC

ORDER

U.S. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
DHHS,
Defendant.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This matter was

18

accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion to

19

appoint counsel. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel primarily because

20

he “is mostly homebound and it is difficult for him to come to court.” ECF No. 10 at 1.

21

In general, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654

22

F.2d 1349, 1653 (9th Cir. 1981). In exceptional circumstances, the court may appoint counsel for

23

indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390

24

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist,

25

the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the

26

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

27

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court

28

finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF

2

No. 10) is DENIED.

3

DATED: September 20, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2