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