1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SIMON THORNTON, Case No. 21-cv-01956-WHO

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER EXTENDING TIME; v. 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 MICHAEL MEDVIN, et al., THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Defendants. 11 Dkt. Nos. 12 and 23

12

13 Plaintiff Thornton’s motion to extend time to file oppositions to the two pending 14 motions for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 23.) The oppositions shall be 15 filed on or before June 1, 2022. 16 Thornton moves for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 12.) The decision to 17 request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under

is within “the 18 sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 19 Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional 20 circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 21 merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 22 the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 23 America,

(9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact 24 that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily 25 qualify the issues involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland,

(9th 26 Cir. 1997). 27 In the Ninth Circuit, roughly one-third of new civil litigants in district court are not 1 || represented by counsel. United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, 2017 Annual Report, 2 || https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/judicial_council/publications/AnnualReport2017.pdf. Most, 3 || but by no means all, of these litigants are incarcerated. There is no doubt that not having a 4 || lawyer puts a party at a disadvantage in our adversarial system of justice, and the high 5 || percentage of civil litigants who cannot afford one threatens our ability to dispense equal 6 || justice to rich and poor alike, as the judicial oath demands. That said, Iam compelled to 7 || follow controlling precedent and determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist to appoint 8 || counsel in the cases before me. 9 Thornton has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist. His filings are clear, 10 || and the suit does not present complex legal issues. Accordingly, Thornton’s motion for the 11 || appointment of counsel is DENIED. I will reconsider the necessity of appointing counsel 2 if circumstances warrant such action at a later date. 5 13 The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. Nos. 12 and 23. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: April 19, 2022 | ( . MUVQe

16 LLIAM H. ORRICK 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28