Russell v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 21-cv-1029-DMS (LL) CHRISTINE ANN RUSSELL, an individual, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

Plaintiff, OF COUNSEL v.

THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA; DR. LAURA MILLER

MD, DR. STACEY CHARAT MD.;

DR. ALLYSON DAVIS MD;

OTHER INDIVIDUALS,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. The Court denies the motion for the following reasons. In general, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). In “exceptional circumstances,” however, a court may exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). At this point, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of /counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2021 \ g f a Yn.

Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court