Graham v. Eisenloffel

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 west SANKONA GRAHAM, Plaintiff, 5 2:21-cv-01674-RFB-VCF v. ORDER || THEODORE EISENLOFFEL, et al., 7 Defendants.

8 Before me is plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22).

9 A litigant in a civil rights action does not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel.

10 || Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 13253 (9th Cir. 1981).

Il The court may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only under exceptional circumstances.

12 || Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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 ||his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither of these factors is || dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” /d. (citations and internal || quotation marks omitted). The court has reviewed the complaint and filings in this case. This case is not || complex, and she has shown an ability to articulate her claims. The Court does not find exceptional || circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel.

19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel || (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.

21 DATED this 22nd day of March 2022. ee, lee.

CAM FERENBACH 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE