Maclellan v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 35 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 5, 2013. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/5/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DOREEN MACLELLAN,

11
12
13

No. C 12-5795 MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

15
16

Before the Court is plaintiff Doreen MacLellan’s “Motion Requesting Appointment of

17

Counsel,” filed March 28, 2013. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a district court may

18

“appoint counsel in civil actions brought in forma pauperis.” See United States v.

19

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).1 “Appointment of counsel

20

under this section is discretionary, not mandatory.” Id. The district court may appoint

21

counsel “only under exceptional circumstances,” and must consider “the likelihood of

22

success on the merits, and the ability of the petitioner to articulate [her] claims pro se in

23

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

24

1017 (1991) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Having read and considered the

25

instant motion, as well as the case record to date, the Court, as discussed below, finds the

26

requisite exceptional circumstances have not been shown.

27
28

1

The above-titled action was not brought in forma pauperis because it was removed
by defendants from state court. For purposes of the instant motion, however, the Court
assumes plaintiff would be entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

1

First, plaintiff has “demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to

2

articulate [her] claim[s].” See id. In that regard, plaintiff’s complaint, both in form and

3

substance, reflects considerable familiarity as to both general procedural law as well as the

4

specific law applicable to plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, the underlying issues are not

5

particularly complex, the primary question being whether the behavior plaintiff manifested

6

at the time of the subject events was of such nature as to warrant her initial and continued

7

detainment under the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Indeed, plaintiff, without the

8

aid of counsel, has successfully opposed a motion to dismiss six of the eight causes of

9

action in her complaint. (See Order filed Jan. 15, 2013 (granting motion as to duplicative

10

cause of action (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) and denying motion in all other

11

respects).)

12

Second, although plaintiff’s complaint raises, on its face, a number of triable issues

13

of fact, defendants have disputed plaintiff’s factual allegations (see Joint Case Mgmt.

14

Statement, filed Feb. 15, 2013), and, on the record currently before the Court, plaintiff has

15

not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

16

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: April 5, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2