Lopez v. Allison et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANDREW LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
D. C. THOMAS,

Re: Dkt. No. 37

Defendant.

8
9

Case No. 21-cv-07136-PJH

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a prisoner. Plaintiff has filed a motion

10

to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v.

11

Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may

12

“request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff

13

is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make

14

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

15

310 (1989).

16

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

17

indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires

18

an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

19

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

20

involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented

21

his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint

22

counsel (Docket No. 37) is DENIED without prejudice.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2022

25
26
27
28

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge