Ralon v. Kaiser Permanente Hospital

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOMITILA PELAEZ RALON, 7 Case No. 23-cv-03344-JCS Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPOINT COUNSEL KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 10 INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 60 11 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to appoint pro bono counsel (“Motion”). The Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

15 There is no right to counsel in a civil case. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court is authorized to appoint an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel under “exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1); United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 1965). To appoint counsel under this section, the Court must find that a party is unable to afford counsel, that is, that they qualify for in forma pauperis status, and that they meet the “exceptional circumstances” requirement. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate [their] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d).” Id. 26 This Court has already found that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status, satisfying the financial need aspect of the Court’s analysis. Therefore, the remaining and dispositive circumstances” to warrant the appointment of counsel. At this early stage of the case, it is not || clear whether Plaintiff’s claims have sufficient substantive merit to justify appointment of pro bono counsel. The Court also cannot determine whether the appointment of counsel might be || warranted based on the complexity of the legal or factual issues raised in the case. Therefore, || Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the || request at a later stage of the case.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: December 16, 2024 J PH C. SPERO 11 nited States Magistrate Judge a 12

= 17 Z 18