Walker v. Kohl's Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 15 Motion; ORDER denying 16 Motion for Appointment of Counsel ; Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 10/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:20-cv-01462-RFB-DJA Document 17 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

DAVID LEROY WALKER,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 2:20-cv-01462-RFB-DJA

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
KOHL’S INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief of Funds (ECF No. 15)

13

and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 16), filed on September 30, 2020. The Court

14

carefully considered Plaintiff’s request for relief of funds, but finds it to be without merit. He

15

fails to support it with proper points and authority. Additionally, civil litigants do not have a

16

Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th

17

Cir. 1981). In very limited circumstances, federal courts are empowered to request an attorney to

18

represent an indigent civil litigant. For example, courts have discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of

20

“exceptional circumstances.” Ageyman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103

21

(9th Cir. 2004). The circumstances in which a court will make such a request, however, are

22

exceedingly rare and require a finding of extraordinary circumstances. United States v. 30.64

23

Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 799-800 (9th Cir. 1986). The difficulties inherent in proceeding pro

24

se do not qualify as exceptional circumstances. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-1336 (9th Cir.

25

1990). Any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance of counsel.” Rand v.

26

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331).

27
28

To determine whether the “exceptional circumstances” necessary for appointment of
counsel are present, courts evaluate (1) the likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits and (2)

Case 2:20-cv-01462-RFB-DJA Document 17 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2

1

the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claim pro se “in light of the complexity of the legal issues

2

involved.” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

3

Cir. 1986)). Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together. Wilborn,

4

789 F.2d at 1331.

5

Here, the court does not find any exceptional circumstances. Upon review of Plaintiff’s

6

complaint and supporting documents, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed on

7

the merits. Further, the claims, such as they are, are not complex. The Court will therefore deny

8

the motion.

9
10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief of Funds (ECF No.
15) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 16) is denied.

13
14

DATED: October 13, 2020

15
16

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2