Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 06/21/11 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2011) Modified on 6/23/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 OAKLAND DIVISION 8 KABITA CHOUDHURI, Case No: C 11-00518 SBA 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURTAPPOINTED COUNSEL 11 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CIT GROUP, Dkt. 44 12 INC.; FIRST AMERICAN LOAN STAR; DEUTSCHE BANK USA; TODD BELL 13 AND MEG DEGROOTE, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Kabita Choudhuri, acting pro se, filed the instant action against Wells Fargo 17 Bank, N.A., among others, accusing them of having engaged in fraudulent mortgage 18 practices, ostensibly in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). Plaintiff is now 19 before the Court on her motion for court-appointed counsel. Dkt. 44. 20 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 21 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts have 22 the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised 23 only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 24 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the 25 ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims 26 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is 27 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting 28 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 1 In the instant case, there is no indication that Plaintiff is indigent within the meaning 2 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That aside, there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the 3 appointment of counsel. The Court recently granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 4 Although the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, her likelihood of success appears 5 tenuous at this juncture. And despite her pro se status, Plaintiff has been able to sufficiently 6 articulate her claims in relation to the complexity of the issues presented. Moreover, the 7 record shows that Plaintiff has been acting pro se and prosecuting a separating state court 8 action against Wells Fargo, further evidencing her ability to proceed in this action without 9 counsel. Accordingly, 10 11 12 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for court-appointed counsel is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 44. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2011 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CHOUDHURI et al, 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. et al, Defendant. / 9 10 Case Number: CV11-00518 SBA 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 13 14 15 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on June 22, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 18 19 Kabita Choudhuri 331 Richardson Way Mill Valley, CA 94941 20 21 Dated: June 22, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 22 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?