Vernacchio v. Davis

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOHN F. VERNACCHIO, Case No. 19-cv-07171-SI 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 8 v. COUNSEL 9 RON DAVIS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 28 10 Defendants.

11 Plaintiff requests that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district court || has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil |} litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 14 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 15 || the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

16 || See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on 17 a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment || of counsel are not evident. Plaintiff stated cognizable claims regarding his discharge from a prison || job, but the court cannot at this time determine the likelihood of success on the merits because || defendants have not yet made their position known. Plaintiff adequately articulated his claims pro || se and the claims are not particularly complex. Since filing this action, plaintiff has been released || from prison; in the free world, he has better access to resources to learn more about prosecuting his || claims and to prepare for defendants’ motion for summary judgment expected to be filed in January || 2021. For these reasons, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 28.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || Dated: December 4, 2020 Site WU tee 28 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge