Ortega v. Barbasa et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2014-cv-03783

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS {{27}} MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CARLOS A. ORTEGA, 7 Case No. 14-cv-03783-HSG (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 9 COUNSEL ROBERT BARBASA, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 27 Defendants. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to assist him in this action. A district 14 court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 15 civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 16 Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 17 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 18 involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 19 deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915 (e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring 20 the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel is therefore 21 DENIED. The Court will consider appointment of counsel on its own motion, and seek volunteer 22 counsel to agree to represent plaintiff pro bono, if it determines at a later time in the proceedings 23 that appointment of counsel is warranted. 24 This order terminates Docket No. 27. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 6/2/2015 27 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge