1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 David Holmes, Case No. 2:24-cv-01138-GMN-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Jason Reusch, et al., Defendants. 8 9 10 Presently before this Court is pro se plaintiff David Holmes’ motion for appointment of 11 counsel. ECF No. 98. Defendants for the City of North Las Vegas opposed. ECF No. 106. No 12 reply is necessary for this Court to resolve this motion. The parties are familiar with the 13 arguments. As a result, this Court only incorporates them as relevant to its order. 14 I. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28

(e)(1). Federal courts do not, however, have the authority “to make coercive 17 appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court,

(1989); see also United 18 States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency,

(9th Cir. 1995) (forfeiture proceedings). 19 “The court may appoint counsel . . . only under ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Terrell v. Brewer, 20

(9th Cir. 1991) (Bivens action); see also Palmer v. Valdez,

, 21 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action); Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,

, 1103 (9th 22 Cir. 2004) (Bivens action); Burns v. Cty. of King,

, 824 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) 23 (Section 1983 action); Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1984) (Section 1983 24 action). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of 25 success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 26 complexity of the issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed 27 together before reaching a decision.” Terrell,

(citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 1 || v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency,

(9th Cir. 1995), as amended (May 24, 1995); 2 || Wood v. Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990) (Section 1983 claims). 3 || IL. ANALYSIS 4 This Court begins with the likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants have filed a 5 || motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint which is currently pending. They raise 6 || statute of limitations arguments and explain why tolling principles afford no relief. At first 7 || glance, it appears Defendants present strong arguments for dismissal of the claims against them. 8 || While the remining Defendants still have to be served, this Court notes Plaintiff will face the 9 || same statute of limitations issue as it relates to those Defendants. In short, this prong is not 10 || favorable to Plaintiff. 11 Next, and more importantly, Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to articulate his claims 12 || in light of the complexity of the issues involved. He has filed numerous motions and succeeded 13 || ona fair share of them. Thus, Plaintiff does not meet this prong. 14 At this juncture, the exceptional circumstances test has not been met. 15 |} I. CONCLUSION 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 17 || (ECF No. 98) is DENIED. 18 19 DATED: November 3, 2025. 20 LK pn la Are 21 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28