West v. Martinez ( 2024 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 JEAN CLAUDE WEST, Case No. 2:23-cv-01489-GMN-EJY 3 4 Plaintiff, 4 ORDER 5 v. 5 6 MARTINEZ, et al., 6 7 Defendants. 7 8 8 9 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 10. In 9 10 the Motion, Plaintiff asserts he lacks the ability to articulate his claims in light of the complex legal 10 11 issues involved, that he suffers from mental health disabilities, and that he was shot in the head. Id. 11 12 As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social 12 13 Services of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18, 30 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th 13 14 Cir. 1981). A court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil 14 15 litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 15 16 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining 16 17 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 17 18 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 18 19 of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 19 20 The Court finds Plaintiff’s instant Motion fails to establish the extraordinary circumstances 20 21 to support appointment of counsel. The lack of adequate legal knowledge, even assuming a case is 21 22 legally complex, is not an exceptional circumstance “in light of the legal competence of most 22 23 prisoners in similar situations.” Zamaro v. Moonga, 656 Fed.Appx. 297, 299 (9th Cir. 2016). And, 23 24 “the Constitution does not require the elimination of all economic, intellectual, and technological 24 25 barriers to litigation.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989). See also Perez v. Nash, 25 26 Case No. 21-cv-00075-RFB-VCF; see also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 26 27 1990) (finding that prisoner litigants’ lack of a legal education does not constitute exceptional 27 28 circumstances). 28 2 November 8, 2023, Plaintiff was instructed to either pay the filing fee or file a complete IFP 2 3 application including his financial certificate and inmate trust account statement no later than 3 4 January 16, 2024. ECF No. 8. The financial certificate and inmate trust account statement provided 4 5 by Plaintiff at ECF Nos. 7 and 9, together with the IFP application at ECF No.1 comprise a complete 5 6 IFP application demonstrating Plaintiff’s inability to prepay the filing fee in this matter. Thus, 6 7 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 7 8 any additional fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. However, Plaintiff must make 8 9 payments toward the $402 filing fee when he has funds available. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s 9 10 Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and separately issue a screening order. 10 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of 11 12 Counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. 12 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 13 14 Nos. 1, 7, 9) is GRANTED; provided, however, that in forma pauperis status will not be extended 14 15 to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. 15 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment 16 17 fee; however, the filing fee is still due under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as amended by the Prisoner Litigation 17 18 Reform Act. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of 18 19 prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefore. 19 20 The Court will issue a screening order regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint. 20 21 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2024. 21 22 22 23 23 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28