1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 JOEY GARCIA, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00422-MMD-WGC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER

10 v. Re: ECF No. 34

11 AMBROSE, et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff 15 bases his motion on the fact that (1) he is proceeding in forma pauperis and not able to afford 16 counsel, (2) Plaintiff’s imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigation this case, (3) the 17 issues involved in the case are complex and will require significant research and investigation, 18 (4) Plaintiff has “limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law,” (5) a trial in 19 this case will likely involve “conflicting testimony, and counsel would better enable plaintiff to 20 present evidence and cross examine witnesses,” and (6) Plaintiff has made repeated attempts and 21 efforts to obtain a law, and has been unsuccessful. (Id. at 1.) 22 /// 23 1 While any pro se inmate such as Mr. Garcia would likely benefit from services of counsel, 2 that is not the standard this court must employ in determining whether counsel should be appointed. 3 Wood v. Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990). 4 A litigant in a civil rights action does not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed

5 counsel. Storseth v. Spellman,

(9th Cir. 1981). The United States Supreme 6 Court has generally stated that although Congress provided relief for violation of one’s civil rights 7 under

, the right to access to the courts is only a right to bring complaints to 8 federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even to litigate them effectively once filed 9 with a court. Lewis v. Casey,

(1996). 10 In very limited circumstances, federal courts are empowered to request an attorney to 11 represent an indigent civil litigant. The circumstances in which a court will grant such a request, 12 however, are exceedingly rare, and the court will grant the request under only extraordinary 13 circumstances. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land,

(9th Cir. 1986); 14 Wilborn v. Escalderon,

(9th Cir. 1986).

15 A finding of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances requires that the court 16 evaluate both the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits and the pro se litigant's ability to 17 articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither factor is 18 controlling; both must be viewed together in making the finding. Terrell v. Brewer,

, 19 1017 (9th Cir. 1991), citing

. Thus far, Plaintiff has been able to 20 successfully articulate his claims. 21 In the matter of a case's complexity, the Ninth Circuit in Wilborn noted that: 22 If all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of 23 2 ] the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues. Thus, 2 although Wilborn may have found it difficult to articulate his claims pro se, he has neither demonstrated 3 a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that the complexity of the issues involved was sufficient to 4 require designation of counsel. 5 The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court's exercise of discretion in denying 6 the request for appointment of counsel because the Plaintiff failed to establish the case was

7 complex as to facts or law.

.

8 The substantive claims involved in this action are not unduly complex. Plaintiff's

9 Complaint was allowed to proceed on the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against 10 Defendant Ambrose, the state law claim for ITED against Defendant Ambrose, the Fourteenth

11 Amendment equal protection violations against Defendant Ambrose, and the First Amendment

retaliation claim against Defendant Ambrose. (ECF No. 18 at 10.) These claims are not so complex B that counsel needs to be appointed to prosecute them.

14 Similarly, with respect to the Terrell factors, Plaintiff has failed to convince the court of

15 the likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence, nor

16 has he made any argument in his motion for appointment of counsel, showing that he is likely to

7 prevail on the merits of his claim.

18 In the exercise of the court's discretion, it DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of

19 Counsel (ECF No. 34). 0 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Dated: November 5, 2021. bJiwtu. G. Cott 22 WILLIAM G. COBB 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE