Anthony Calzada v. Larry Williamson, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Anthony Calzada, Case No. 2:22-cv-02050-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. Larry Williamson, et al., [Docket No. 82] 10 Defendant(s).

11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Docket No. 82.

12 Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 83. No reply was filed.

13 A litigant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue civil rights claims. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “The court may request1 an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court will request an attorney for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 17 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The word “exceptional” is defined as “out of the ordinary course, unusual,” or “rare.” See Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press 2015). Representations of an inability to retain counsel, as well as “[c]ircumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.” E.g., Boyd v. Henry, No. 2:23-cv- 01022-CDS-MDC, 2024 WL 4046456, at *5 (D. Nev. May 9, 2024) ((quoting Baker v. Macomber, No. 2:15-cv-00248-TLN-AC, 2020 WL 1182495, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020)). When determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers the plaintiff’s likelihood 26 1 To be clear, the Court does not “appoint” counsel in civil cases. The law “does not actually authorize the court to force a lawyer to take a case” and the Court does not have “staff attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants.” Chan v. Ryan, 2023 WL 197429, at *2 (W.D.

Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) (quoting Sifuentes v. Nautilus, Inc., 2022 WL 1014963, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 5, 2022)).

1} of success on the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. “Neither of these considerations 3] is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” /d.

4 This case is centered on Plaintiffs allegations of inadequate medical care. See Docket No. 5] 6 (screening order). The claim does not appear to be complex. Moreover, Plaintiff has thus far 6| shown a sufficient ability to articulate claims and arguments without the assistance of counsel.

7| While Plaintiff has stated a colorable claim sufficiently to proceed past the pleading stage, Plaintiff 8|| has not yet demonstrated that evidence shows a likelihood to succeed on the merits of that claim.

9| Cf Hucker v. Daub, No. 21-cv-577 JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 2550089, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 10] 2021) (collecting cases that stating a colorable claim is not, standing alone, sufficient to 11] demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits).

12 Accordingly, the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: November 26, 2025 16 United Sia agistrate Judge 27 ? The arguments concerning discovery are misplaced in that discovery is closed. See Docket No. 81 at 1. The arguments concerning difficulty in litigating while incarcerated are not 28] persuasive. See Boyd, 2024 WL 4046456, at *5.