1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID L. COOK, Case No. 19-cv-01370-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. APPOINT COUNSEL

10 MARCOS TORRES, Re: Dkt. No. 149 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a former county detainee and current federal prisoner, proceeds with a 14 pro se civil rights complaint under

. Defendants’ motion for summary 15 judgment was granted in part and denied in part and a settlement conference is 16 scheduled for this case. Presently pending is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel for the 17 settlement conference. 18 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social 19 Services,

(1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel 20 represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28

(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive 22 appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

, 310 23 (1989). 24 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an 25 indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires 26 an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the 27 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 1 his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint 2 counsel (Docket No. 149) is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 13, 2021 5 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27