UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL #58 Case No. SACV 20-796 PSG (DFMx) Date August 19, 2020 Title Ahmad J. Aljindi v. United States of America, et al. Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel Before the Court is Plaintiff Ahmad J. Aljindi’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for appointment of counsel. See generally Dkt. # 58. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered the papers submitted in support of the motion, the Court denies the motion. A district court will secure counsel for an indigent civil litigant only in “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Wilborn v. Escalderon,

(9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). In the present case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances warrant the securing of counsel. The Court has expressed serious doubts about Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits in response to previous motions brought by Plaintiff, see Dkt. # 52 at 3, and it continues to be doubtful. Additionally, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims pro se, in motion practice and otherwise, since filing his complaint. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.