Williams v. La Vie Residences ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 RYAN WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01554-JAD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 LA VIE RESIDENCES, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Request[ing] Pro Bono Representation (ECF 11 No. 4). As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Department of 12 Social Services of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 13 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court has discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint counsel 14 for an indigent civil litigant to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. United States v. 15 McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to 16 appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). 17 A court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 19 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining whether 20 “exceptional circumstances” exist a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as 21 well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 22 legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). However, a court “is 23 not required to articulate reasons for denying appointment of counsel if the reasons are clear from 24 the record.” Johnson v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 In this case, Plaintiff fails to establish exceptional circumstances and the record does not 26 suggest any. In her Motion, Plaintiff states simply that she requests pro bono representation because 27 she is “a Nevada resident, unemployed and female.” ECF No. 4. None of these facts constitutes an 1 successfully litigate her claim, this is insufficient grounds to warrant the appointment of pro bono 2 counsel. Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) (“the Constitution does not require 3 the elimination of all economic, intellectual, and technological barriers to litigation”). Further, the 4 Screening Order reveals Plaintiff has yet to allege any facts establishing a basis for federal 5 jurisdiction. ECF No. 3. Even assuming Plaintiff can plead additional facts establishing a claim 6 under Title VI, and thus federal jurisdiction, this single claim is not so complex that it warrants 7 appointment of counsel. See Ghareeb v. Univ. of N. Colo., Case No. 19-cv-00228-STV, 2019 WL 8 13444179 at *4 (D. Colo. May 28, 2019) (denying motion requesting appointment of counsel for a 9 Title VI claim even when a plaintiff “makes representations that an attorney would be more 10 knowledgeable of the law and thus better suited to prosecute his claims” because the motion “does 11 not present any unique circumstances that would prevent Plaintiff from effectively investigating the 12 facts and presenting his claims”). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the appointment of pro 13 bono counsel is not warranted. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Request[ing] Pro Bono 15 Representation (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. 16 Dated this 13th Day of September. 17 18 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27