(PS) Legardy v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLETCHER SHERMAN LEGARDY, No. 2:22-cv-01881 KJM AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s disability accommodation request, filed as a motion to 18 appoint counsel. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s motion does not expressly request appointment of 19 counsel; it is instead a state court form seeking assistance with filing documents because of partial 20 blindness. ECF No. 4 21 Though plaintiff does not request counsel, insofar as it was his intention to do so, the court 22 finds he is not entitled to counsel. In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege 23 and not a right.” United States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) 24 (citation omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. 25 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the 26 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 27 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 28 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and findings and recommendations are 1 || pending recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 3. There is no 2 | likelihood of success on the merits. 3 Insofar as plaintiff is requesting assistance with filing documents due to his vision 4 || problems, the form he filed 1s not applicable in this court. To the extent plaintiff needs assistance 5 || with filing due to his partial blindness, he is directed to contact the Clerk of Court for assistance. 6 Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATED: November 17, 2022 4 ten (A /, 9 ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28