Nieto v. Allison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL NIETO, Case No. 22-cv-06983-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RENEWED 9 v. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 10 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., Re: ECF No. 30 Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff has filed a renewed request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 30. The Court 14 previously denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel on October 16, 2023, for lack of 15 exceptional circumstances. ECF No. 23. In his renewed request for appointment of counsel, 16 Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its denial, stating that recent health reports support his 17 claims of mental and physical limitations that support a finding of the requisite extraordinary 18 circumstances. Plaintiff has provided the Court with a January 11, 2024 Mental Health Treatment 19 Program IDTT notes, stating that the notes support his claims that (1) he suffers trauma from the 20 sexual assault at issue and that it is mentally, physically, and emotionally taxing to relive these 21 events to prepare for the case; and (2) he has severe physical and mental health issues that affect 22 his ability to prosecute this action because his mobility is limited and he has trouble focusing and 23 concentrating. Plaintiff has also provided the Court with an MRI report that indicates that he has 24 small vessel ischemia, which he alleges impacts his ability to focus, concentrate, and remember. 25 See generally ECF No. 30. 26 The Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s initial request for appointment of counsel took into 27 account Plaintiff’s physical health and mental health, and credited Plaintiff’s descriptions of the 1 request for appointment of counsel. At this stage in the action, the likelihood of Plaintiff's success 2 || on the merits is unclear, and the legal issues involved are not complex. Thus far, Plaintiff has ably 3 articulated his claims despite his challenges. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's renewed 4 || request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances without prejudice to the 5 Court sua sponte appointing counsel in the future should the circumstances so require. ECF No. 6 30. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding 7 of “exceptional circumstances” requires evaluation of likelihood of plaintiff's success on merits 8 and evaluation of plaintiff's ability to articulate claims pro se in light of complexity of legal issues 9 involved). 10 This order terminates ECF No. 30. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: February 27, 2024 . . JON S. TIGAR 14 nited States District Judge 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28