Brahmana v. Lembo et al

Filing 316

ORDER DENYING 313 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on July 19, 2011. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PHILLIP LEMBO, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
___________________________________ )
METTEYYA BRAHMANA,
12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: C 09-00106 PSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Re: Docket No. 313)

17
Plaintiff Metteyya Brahmana (“Brahmana”) has requested appointment of counsel. For the
18
reasons discussed below, Brahmana’s request is DENIED.
19
In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court “may request an attorney to represent any
20
21

person unable to afford counsel.”1 The decision to appoint such counsel is within “the sound
discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.”2 To determine

22
whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court should evaluate two factors: (1) the likelihood of
23
success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
24

light of the complexity of legal issues involved.3 “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both

25
26

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

27

2

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984).

28

3

See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation omitted).
ORDER, page 1

1

must be viewed together before reaching a decision.”4

2

In the present case, Brahmana’s wrongful termination claim and his false light claim have

3

survived a summary judgement motion, demonstrating some likelihood of success. These claims,

4

however, are not of a particularly complex nature, and Brahmana has demonstrated that he is capable

5

of effectively presenting his own case. Thus, Brahmana has not demonstrated any exceptional

6

circumstances that would warrant an appointment of counsel here. Accordingly,

7
8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Brahmana’s request is DENIED.
Dated: July 19, 2011

9
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
ORDER, page 2

1

Notice of this filing was automatically mailed to counsel via the court’s Electronic Case Filing
system.

2
3
4
5
6
7

A copy of this filing was mailed to:
Metteyya Brahmana
351 Turk St. # 717
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dated: July 19, 2011
/s/ Chambers Staff
Chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER, page 3