Enwere v. San Mateo Mental Health Clinic

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL re 19 (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2010)

Enwere v. San Mateo Mental Health Clinic

Doc. 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. SAN MATEO MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant. / CATHY ENWERE, Plaintiff, No. C 10-03235 SI ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On October 5, 2010, the Court granted pro se plaintiff Cathy Enwere's application to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her request for appointment of counsel. With respect to the request for appointment of counsel, the Court denied the request after reviewing the documents filed in this case and the documents filed in Ms. Enwere's prior action (Case No. 07-1239). Based on that review, the Court found that Ms. Enwere's claims in this case are not likely to succeed and there are no exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. October 5, 2010 Order at 3. Ms. Enwere has now filed a second motion seeking appointment of counsel, arguing that she needs counsel because of her mental health issues. See Docket No. 19. While the Court is cognizant of the burdens that mental health issues may have with respect to a litigant's ability to prosecute his or her case, the Court will not appoint counsel here. As noted before, at this point in the litigation the Court has significant doubts that Ms. Enwere's claims are likely to succeed. Moreover, the documents filed by plaintiff in the case indicate that Ms. Enwere is able to explain the factual and legal bases for her claims. As such, the second request for appointment of counsel will be denied. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may appoint counsel to an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(1) in "exceptional circumstances" where there is a likelihood of success

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

on the merits and the plaintiff may not be able to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2