Anderson v. Sokoloff et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ERIC ZACHARY ANDERSON,

Case No. 15-cv-01854-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

9
10

M. SOKOLOFF,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action.

13

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may

14

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18,

15

25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to

16

counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952

17

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28

18

U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an

19

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to

20

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525;

21

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

22

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on

23

a request for counsel under § 1915. See id.

24

The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which

25

would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are

26

at an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on

27

the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of

28

the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103

1

(9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

2

prejudice. This does not mean, however, that the Court will not consider appointment of counsel

3

at a later juncture in the proceedings; that is, after Defendant has filed a dispositive motion such

4

that the Court will be in a better position to consider the procedural and substantive matters at

5

issue. Therefore, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel after

6

Defendant’s dispositive motion has been filed. If the Court decides that appointment of counsel is

7

warranted at that time, it will seek volunteer counsel to agree to represent Plaintiff pro bono.

8

This Order terminates Docket No. 28.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: October 17, 2016

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2