Williams v. Fannie Mae ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-848-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 21) 14 BANK OF AMERICA and FANNIE MAE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a complaint on May 26, 2021. 20 (Doc. No. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel filed March 3, 21 2022. (Doc. No. 21). On March 28, 2022, the district court adopted the Findings and 22 Recommendations granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss but permitting Plaintiff an opportunity 23 to file an Amended Complaint no later than April 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 22). In the instant 24 motion, pre-dating the district court’s March 28 order, Plaintiff states she seeks appointment of 25 counsel for a litany of reasons, but mainly seeks an attorney as an accommodation under the 26 ADA. (Doc. No. 21 at 1-3). Plaintiff also states she is a citizen of the United States and is 27 entitled to benefits all other citizens are afforded including due process under the Fourteenth 28 Amendment. (Id. at 3). 1 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 2 | Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 3 | create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 4 | discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent person to commence, prosecute, or 5 defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint 6 | counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 7 | (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil 8 || cases) (other citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted 9 | only in “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The court considers many factors to determine 10 | if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, proof of indigence, the 11 likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims 12 | pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 13 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 14 | 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 15 At the outset, Plaintiff has not alleged, yet alone established, that she is indigent and 16 | cannot afford counsel. Notably, Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma 17 || pauperis. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has not met her “burden of demonstrating exceptional 18 | circumstances.” Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff 19 | does not provide any specificity as to the nature of her alleged disability or how it impedes her 20 | ability to litigate this case. Plaintiff's disability status does not mandate appointment of counsel 21 | inthis case. See e.g., Lal v. United States, Case No. 2:20-cv-349-JAM-DB, 2020 WL 8619961, at 22 | *1 (ED. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020) (finding plaintiff's argument that he qualifies as an individual with a 23 | disability did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel). 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 25 Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED. | Dated: _ March 29, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh fackte 27 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE