Collins v. Repp et al
Filing
16
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/28/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
AMBIBE COLLINS,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00676-GMN-NJK
Plaintiff(s),
7
ORDER
8
v.
9
J. REPP, et al.,
[Docket No. 15]
10
Defendant(s).
11
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Docket No. 15.
12
A litigant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue civil rights claims. See
13 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “The court may request1 an attorney
14 to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court will request
15 an attorney for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
16 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The word “exceptional” is defined as “out of the ordinary course,
17 unusual,” or “rare.” See Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press 2015). Representations
18 of an inability to retain counsel, as well as “[c]ircumstances common to most prisoners, such as
19 lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances
20 that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.” E.g., Boyd v. Henry, No. 2:23-cv21 01022-CDS-MDC, 2024 WL 4046456, at *5 (D. Nev. May 9, 2024) ((quoting Baker v. Macomber,
22 No. 2:15-cv-00248-TLN-AC, 2020 WL 1182495, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020)). When
23 determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers the plaintiff’s likelihood
24 of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
25
26
1
To be clear, the Court does not “appoint” counsel in civil cases. The law “does not
actually authorize the court to force a lawyer to take a case” and the Court does not have “staff
27 attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants.” Chan v. Ryan, 2023 WL 197429, at *2 (W.D.
Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) (quoting Sifuentes v. Nautilus, Inc., 2022 WL 1014963, at *1 (W.D. Wash.
28 Apr. 5, 2022)).
1
1 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. “Neither of these considerations
2 is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id.
3
In this case, Plaintiff’s motion indicates only that he cannot afford counsel. See Docket
4 No. 15. An inability to afford counsel is not, standing alone, sufficient for a judicial request for
5 counsel. Moreover, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances based on its own review of
6 the docket. While Plaintiff has stated a colorable claim sufficiently to proceed past the pleading
7 stage, Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated that evidence shows a likelihood to succeed on the merits
8 of that claim. Cf. Hucker v. Daub, No. 21-cv-577 JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 2550089, at *6 (S.D. Cal.
9 June 22, 2021) (collecting cases that stating a colorable claim is not, standing alone, sufficient to
10 demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits). Moreover, the claims alleged do not appear to
11 be particularly complex. Lastly, Plaintiff has thus far shown a sufficient ability to articulate claims
12 and arguments without the assistance of counsel.
13
Accordingly, the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: January 28, 2025
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?