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).

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-