Cook v. Torres

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID L. COOK, Case No. 19-cv-01370-PJH

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. APPOINT COUNSEL

MARCOS TORRES, Re: Dkt. No. 149

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a former county detainee and current federal prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part and a settlement conference is scheduled for this case. Presently pending is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel for the settlement conference.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28

21 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989).

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 149) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2021

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge