1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSE MCCULLY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00478-JES-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPOINT COUNSEL; and 15 Defendant. (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY 17 FILE DOCUMENTS

18 [ECF Nos. 2, 7] 19

20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rose McCully’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to 21 appoint counsel (ECF No. 2) and motion for leave to electronically file documents (ECF 22 No. 7). After due consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 23 WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to appoint counsel and GRANTS the motion for 24 leave to electronically file documents. 25 On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging various 26 violations under the Federal Torts Claim Act. See generally ECF No. 1. The same day, 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 2. On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 2 motion for leave to electronically file documents. ECF No. 7. 3 I. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 4 The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless 5 an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t 6 of Soc. Servs.,

(1981); Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th Cir. 2009). 7 While

(e)(1) gives district courts discretion to “request” that an attorney 8 represent indigent civil litigants, it may only be exercised upon a showing of “exceptional 9 circumstances.” Agyeman v. Carr Corp. of Am.,

, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); 10 Terrell v. Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991). When assessing whether 11 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must undergo “an evaluation of both ‘the 12 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 13 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look,

(9th Cir. 15 1983)). Courts must review both factors before deciding whether to appoint counsel, and 16 neither factor is individually dispositive.

Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that 17 exceptional circumstances exist. See Palmer,

. 18 Plaintiff has stated that she has made efforts to obtain legal counsel but has been 19 unsuccessful in those efforts and lists three different law firms she contacted to obtain legal 20 representation. ECF No. 2 at 2-4. She then states that she needs appointed counsel because 21 “[she] lack[s] the financial means to retain counsel. The legal and factual issues are 22 complex. I have limited access to legal resources. Appointment of counsel serves the 23 interest of justice. Without legal representation I would be severely disadvantaged against 24 experienced defense counsel.” Id. at 4. 25 It is too early for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 26 merits, as such, she fails to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances” that would 27 warrant appointment of counsel. “[T]ime has yet to tell whether she is likely to succeed on 28 the merits of any claim.” Ecasali v. McMillin, No. 24-cv-02489-BAS-JLB,

674616, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025). Plaintiff’s lack of legal training and lack of financial 2 means do not constitute exceptional circumstances, as these are the types of difficulties 3 many other litigants face in proceeding pro se. See Taa v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 4 5:11-CV-00554 EJD,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012). 5 The information before the Court suggests that the complexity of this case does not 6 exceed Plaintiff’s abilities. Thus far, Plaintiff has been able to articulate her claims, file 7 motions with the court and navigate civil procedure without legal assistance. Thus, Plaintiff 8 has not established that this case is “exceptional” or that the issues in it are particularly 9 complex. Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to 10 appoint counsel. 11 II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS 12 Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court 13 has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” CivLR 5.4(a). 14 With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the court, all 15 documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office … must be in legible, paper form.” 16 See Elec. Case Filing Admin. Policies and Proc. Manual, § 2(b) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2025) 17 (“ECF Manual”). “A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file 18 a motion and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and 19 software capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF 20 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Id. The ECF Manual refers to the Court’s 21 official website for CM/ECF technical specifications, id., § 1(i), which include a 22 “[c]omputer running Windows or Macintosh”; “[s]oftware to convert documents from a 23 word processor format to portable document format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 24 and higher”; “[i]nternet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher”; a compatible 25 browser, such as “Firefox 15, Internet Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6 or later version”; a 26 “[s]canner to image noncomputerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi)”; and a PACER 27 account. See U.S. District Court, S.D. Cal., CM/ECF: General Info, 28 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1 (last visited May 11, 2025). 1 In the motion for leave to electronically file documents, Plaintiff affirms she has 2 reviewed the ECF Manual, agrees to follow all rules and policies in the ECF Manual, and 3 access to the technology needed for electronic filing. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to electronically file documents (ECF No. 5 ||7), is GRANTED. Plaintiff is cautioned that electronic filing is a privilege and that any 6 || abuse of the CM/ECF system may result in termination of her electronic filing privileges. 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 9 ||motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 2) and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to 10 || electronically file documents (ECF No. 7). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: May 19, 2025 13 4 we Sn— “4 A. 14 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28