Barela v. Tualla

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DAVID EDWARD BARELA, Case No. 3:21-cv-02940-JD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION FOR 8 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 JOE TUALLA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 3 10 Defendants.

12 Pro se plaintiff David Barela’s request for appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 3, is denied.

5 13 || There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep ’t of Social Servs., 452 |} US. 18, 25 (1981); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In “exceptional 15 || circumstances,” the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. a 16 § 1915(e)(1), Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quotation omitted), but those circumstances are not present 17 || here. The legal and factual issues are not unduly complex. While plaintiff may have physical || disabilities and health issues, he has not shown that he is incapable of litigating this case on his || own.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: June 1, 2021 JAMES PONATO United States District Judge