1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LE ROI JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
Defendant.
/
No. C-07-0195 MMC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Docket No. 4)
The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Because
plaintiff is not an indigent litigant who may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation,
there is no right to appointment of counsel in this case, see Lassiter v. Dep't of Social
Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available to compensate appointed
counsel. Nonetheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Such a request for counsel “is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” See Agyeman
v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
and citation omitted). A finding of such “exceptional circumstances” requires “an evaluation
of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s
ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” See id.
Here, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot determine the likelihood of
Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 8 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Johnson v. Contra Costa County
Doc. 8
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
plaintiff’s prevailing on the merits of his claims. Moreover, plaintiff has been able to
articulate the basis of his claims adequately without the assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request is DENIED without prejudice.
This order terminates Docket No. 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2007