1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTINE ANN RUSSELL, Case No.: 21cv1029-LL-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DR. LAURA MILLER MD; DR. 15 [ECF No. 28] STACEY CHARAT MD; DR. 16 ALLYSON DAVIS MD; and OTHER INDIVIDUALS, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Court Appointed Attorney; 21 motion for relief from the original judgement” which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s 22 Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff Russell proceeding 23 pro se and in forma pauperis, filed her Complaint for medical negligence against the named 24 Defendants on May 28, 2021. ECF No. 1. On June 28, 2021, Judge Sabraw issued an Order 25 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 4. On January 7, 2022, 26 this case was transferred to the undersigned Judge. ECF No. 13. For the reasons stated 27 herein, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 28] is DENIED 28 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1 As the Court previously explained, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a 2 civil case. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 3 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court has discretion in “exceptional 4 circumstances” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to “request an attorney to represent any 5 person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. 6 Determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist requires consideration of both (1) 7 a plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits” and (2) whether the [Plaintiff] “is unable 8 to articulate [her] claims in light of the complexity of the issues involved.” Palmer, 560 9 F.3d at 970; see also Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1309 (9th Cir. 2015); see 10 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “Neither of these 11 considerations is dispositive and must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. 12 In her most recent request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff claims that “there 13 are now ‘exceptional circumstances’ that demonstrate that the judgment is manifestly 14 unjust.” Motion at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she “is no longer physically and 15 medically capable and doesn’t have the ability to represent pro se and doesn’t have the 16 ability necessary due to the complexity of the legal issues involved and medical 17 conditions.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further claims that she ‘has no legal background” and has 18 “exhausted all means of trying to obtain counsel on contingency basis.” Id. 19 The Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s claimed medical issues. However, Plaintiff’s 20 current circumstances are insufficient to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” 21 required to justify appointment of counsel. Here, Plaintiff’s purported impairments have 22 not prevented her from articulating her request for counsel. ECF No. 28. Indeed, Plaintiff’s 23 writing in every submission to the Court (including her most recent motion) is clear and 24 cogent. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel is organized into sections 25 including “Introduction,” “Argument” and “Conclusion” and relies on legal authority 26 including, but not limited to, “Schroeder v. Johnson” and “Terrell v. Brewer.” Id. With 27 respect to Plaintiff’s claim that she “has no legal background,” indeed, in many cases pro 28 se plaintiffs do not have legal training. Limited education is not sufficient to meet 1 || exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th 2 || Cir. 1990) (upholding denial of appointment of counsel where plaintiff complained that he 3 || had limited access to a law library and lacked a legal education). 4 Finally, it is still too early to determine whether Plaintiffs claims will survive a 5 ||motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff offers no evidence other than her assertions to 6 ||support the claims in her Complaint. See Garcia v. Smith, No. 10-cv1187-AJB (RBB), 7 WL 2499003, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (denying motion for appointment of 8 ||}counsel when it was too early to determine whether any of plaintiffs claims would survive 9 motion for summary judgment). Thus, the likelihood of success on the merits of her 10 claims has not been established. 11 For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's situation does not rise to “exceptional 12 ||circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for 13 || appointment of counsel (ECF No. 28) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||Dated: August 9, 2022 16 NO 17 Qe | 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28