Hart v. Brennan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON ANNETTE HART, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01581 LJO JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 13 v. ) PREJUDICE ) 14 MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, ) (Doc. 21) United States Postal Service, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 17 On October 15, 2019, Sharon Annette Hart filed a second motion for appointment of counsel. 18 (Doc. 21) Plaintiff again makes the request because she is “a layperson” and reports she does “not 19 understand anything about the language of the law.” (Id. at 1) Further, Plaintiff asserts she is “currently 20 unemployed and … can’t afford to hire an attorney to represent [her] in this matter.” (Id.) 21 As Plaintiff was previously informed, there is no constitutional right to counsel in most civil 22 cases, but the Court may request an attorney to represent indigent persons. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The 23 Court cannot require representation of a plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mallard v. U.S. District 24 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in “exceptional 25 circumstances,” the Court has discretion to request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 27 To determine whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the 28 likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in 1 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks 2 and citations omitted). The Court determined that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim in her First 3 Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff has demonstrated that she is able to state her position in an 4 intelligible manner before the Court. Further, at this early stage in the proceeding, the Court is unable 5 to make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore, the Court does not 6 find the required exceptional circumstances at this time. 7 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 21) 8 is DENIED without prejudice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 18, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28