Palmer-Carri v. State of California et al

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/1/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANET PALMER-CARRI,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE
GOVT AGENCIES; POLICE OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY; JERRY BROWN,
Governor; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL,

15
16
17
18

[ECF No. 4]

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action pro se against the State of
California and its agencies, the Police of San Diego County, Governor Jerry Brown, and
the Office of the Attorney General. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has paid the filing fee for this
action. (See id.) On November 15, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel in
light of her inability to afford retained consel. (ECF No. 4.)
Generally, a civil plaintiff has no right to appointed counsel. See Hernandez v.
Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court, however, “may request
an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Under the law of this circuit, court appointment of counsel requires a finding of
1
3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS

1

“exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). In

2

order to assess whether such circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both a

3

petitioner’s (a) likelihood of success on the merits and (b) ability to articulate her claims

4

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. “Neither of these factors is

5

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting

6

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Ninth Circuit has

7

determined that not every difficulty a pro se plaintiff encounters in prosecuting her case

8

is a complexity entitling her to counsel. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was

9

required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a

10

demonstration of the need for [the] development of further facts, practically all cases

11

would involve complex legal issues. Thus, although Wilborn may have found it difficult

12

to articulate his claims pro se, he has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the

13

merits nor shown that the complexity of the issues involved was sufficient to require

14

designation of counsel.” )

15

Here, at this time, based on the Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether

16

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. In addition, Plaintiff has not

17

made a showing of her inability to articulate the basis of her claims in light of the

18

complexities of the issues involved.

19
20
21

Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment
of counsel without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 1, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
2
3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS