Austin v. Cermeno, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying without prejudice 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 12-05187 YGR (PR)

ARONDO AUSTIN,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff,
vs.
J. CERMENO, et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action.

18

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose

19

his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25

20

(1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in

21

§ 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)

22

(en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only

23

in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the

24

likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se

25

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

26

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

27

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under

28

§ 1915. See id.

1

The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which

2

would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are at

3

an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the

4

merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of the

5

complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th

6

Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

7

This does not mean, however, that the Court will not consider appointment of counsel at a later

8

juncture in the proceedings; that is, after Defendants have filed their dispositive motion such that the

9

Court will be in a better position to consider the procedural and substantive matters at issue.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Therefore, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel after Defendants'

11

dispositive motion has been filed. If the Court decides that appointment of counsel is warranted at

12

that time, it will seek volunteer counsel to agree to represent Plaintiff pro bono.

13

This Order terminates Docket No. 23.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED:

April 17, 2014
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

P:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Austin.5187.DenyAtty.frm

2