Winns v. Exela Enterprise Solutions Inc

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 HARRIS L. WINNS, Case No. 20-cv-06762-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. APPOINT PRO BONO COUNSEL 14 EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS INC, Re: ECF No. 3 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Harris L. Winns, who is representing himself, asked the court to appoint him counsel.1 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 19 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)).

20 “However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Id. (citing Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 22 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” /d. (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 2 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

3 On this record, the court does not appoint pro bono counsel. The court separately gave the || plaintiff notice of the court’s resources for litigants representing themselves, including a copy of the district court’s handbook Representing Yourself in Federal Court, and the flyer for the Legal || Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, which provides telephone appointments with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not representation.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: October 13, 2020 Lit EC LAUREL BEELER 12 United States Magistrate Judge

= 17 Z 18