Bonty v. Kuman et al

Filing 92

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS 86 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2018)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MILES ORLONDO BONTY,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

Case No. 17-cv-03516-HSG (PR)

v.
K. KUMAR, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 86

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to assist him in this action. A district

12

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent

13

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

14

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

15

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

16

involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

17

deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring

18

the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel is therefore

19

DENIED. The Court will consider appointment of counsel on its own motion, and seek volunteer

20

counsel to agree to represent plaintiff pro bono, if it determines at a later time in the proceedings

21

that appointment of counsel is warranted.

22

This order terminates Dkt. No. 86.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: 9/13/2018

25
26
27
28

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge