Santos v. Annikos ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:23-cv-00281-MMD-CSD RONALD R. SANTOS, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 92 v. 6 KENNETH ANNIKOS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 Before the court is Plaintiff’s fourth motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10 92.) 11 Plaintiff states that he suffers from back pain and was reviewing medical records that had 12 been filed under seal by Defendants when he came across reports of MRIs of his spine from 13 2018, of which he had not been previously apprised. He argues this will necessitate the need to 14 depose multiple defendants to determine if there was a cover-up. Plaintiff represents that he 15 spoke with his former lawyer from his habeas action, Lori Teicher, of the Federal Public 16 Defender’s Office, who told him to file a motion for appointment of counsel and have his cases 17 referred to the pro bono panel so that the Federal Public Defender can represent him in this 18 action. 19 “[A] person [generally] has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 20 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, does allow the court to “request an attorney to represent any 22 person unable to afford counsel.” That being said, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is 23 within the court’s discretion and is only allowed in “exceptional cases.” See Palmer, 560 F.3d at (citations omitted); see also Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015). In “determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Wevgandt v. 5} Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 2015). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” □□□ (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell vy. Brewer, 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). 9 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims in this 10]| action. Nor are his claims unduly complex. Plaintiff asserts that he needs to depose Defendants 11]|to determine if there has been a cover-up, but he does not explain why written discovery would not be sufficient to determine this information. In sum, Plaintiff has not established that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the appointment of pro bono counsel in this case. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Plaintiffs fourth motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 92) is DENIED. 16 17| IT IS SO ORDERED. 18]| Dated: August 30, 2024 19 Cc C x Craig S. Denney 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23