(PC) Rader v. County of Placer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JACOB RADER, No. 2:19-cv-1265 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER COUNTY OF PLACER, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 50. In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. at 794. “When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).

25 Plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, requests appointment of limited scope counsel in order to assist him with procedural issues in this case. ECF No. 50. The motion does not specify what issues plaintiff seeks assistance with or identify any grounds for appointment of counsel other than that it would serve judicial economy and be “extremely beneficial.” Id. The facts and | issues raised are not particularly complex, and plaintiff has, up to this point, demonstrated that he || 1s capable of articulating his claims without assistance. Furthermore, at this stage of the case, the || likelihood of success on the merits is unclear. Appointment of counsel therefore is not || appropriate.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 50) is DENIED.

7 | DATED: November 21, 2023 ~ 8 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE