1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KEFVON JEROME CAMP, Case No. 24-cv-04771-RMI 5 Plaintiff, y. ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 20 7 M. VALDEZ, g Defendant. 9 10 For good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s request for an extension 11 (dkt. 20) to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED, and the motion shall be filed by June 2, 2025. 12 Plaintiff has also filed a motion (dkt. 17) to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional 5 13 || right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services,

(1981). 14 || Although district courts may “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma 15 pauperis, as Plaintiff is here, see

(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to a 16 |} make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

, 17 || 310. 4989). 18 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent 19 || litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of 20 || both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 21 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented his claims adequately and the issues are not 23 || complex. The motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: April 16, 2025

27 28 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge