Medina v. Immigration and Naturalization Director

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 2 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

PEDRO MEDINA,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
DIRECTOR,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04436-PSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Re: Docket No. 2)

Before the court is Plaintiff Pedro Medina’s motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff’s request
does not lay out the reasoning why Plaintiff’s motion should be granted. “Generally, a person has

19
20

no right to counsel in civil actions. However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’

21

appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”1 “When

22

determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of

23

success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of

24

the complexity of the legal issues involved.’”2 “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and

25
26
27

1

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

28

2

Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
1

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04436-PSG
ORDER