(PC) Rader v. County of Placer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB RADER, No. 2:19-cv-1265 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF PLACER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 50. In civil cases, a pro se 18 litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. 19 Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of counsel should 20 be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. at 794. “When determining whether “exceptional 21 circumstances” exist, the court must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as 22 the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 23 issues involved.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. 24 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 25 Plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, requests appointment of limited scope counsel in 26 order to assist him with procedural issues in this case. ECF No. 50. The motion does not specify 27 what issues plaintiff seeks assistance with or identify any grounds for appointment of counsel 28 other than that it would serve judicial economy and be “extremely beneficial.” Id. The facts and 1 | issues raised are not particularly complex, and plaintiff has, up to this point, demonstrated that he 2 || 1s capable of articulating his claims without assistance. Furthermore, at this stage of the case, the 3 || likelihood of success on the merits is unclear. Appointment of counsel therefore is not 4 || appropriate. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 6 || counsel (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. 7 | DATED: November 21, 2023 ~ 8 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28