Fields v. Ducart

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS 19 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 RONNIE FIELDS, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 Case No. 16-cv-06494-HSG (PR) v. CLARK E. DUCART, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 19 9 10 Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to assist him in this action. A district United States District Court Northern District of California 11 court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 12 civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 13 Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 14 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 15 involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 16 deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915 (e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring 17 the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel is therefore 18 DENIED. The Court will consider appointment of counsel on its own motion, and seek volunteer 19 counsel to agree to represent plaintiff pro bono, if it determines at a later time in the proceedings 20 that appointment of counsel is warranted. 21 This order terminates Docket No. 19. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 5/2/2017 24 25 26 27 28 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?