Dupre v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 COLIN DUPRE, Case No.: 22cv169-JO-AGS 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 REQUEST TO APPOINT COUNSEL CITY OF SAN DIEGO; ALPHA; 14 FATHER JOES; MCELROY; 15 MOSTELLAR; NISLET; SAYASANE; and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Colin Dupre, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 21 § 1983. He requests that the Court appoint counsel because he is unable to afford an 22 attorney. Dkt. 3. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion. 23 While the United States Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in 24 civil cases, see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980), the Court may, in 25 its discretion, appoint counsel for an individual that is unable to afford counsel. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Such requests are granted only in “exceptional circumstances,” after 27 an evaluation of (1) “the likelihood of success on the merits,” and (2) “the ability of the 28 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 1 |jinvolved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt 2 ||v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that 3 exceptional circumstances exist. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 4 Considering both the likelihood of success on the merits and Plaintiffs ability to 5 articulate his claims pro se, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show 6 extraordinary circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel. First, there is no 7 indication that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. At this stage in the 8 || litigation, Plaintiff's complaint has not been served and there is nothing in the record aside 9 || from Plaintiff's unsupported allegations. Jackson v. Jordan, 2020 WL 12589354, at *1 10 |/(C_D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) (finding no likelihood of success on the merits where the complaint 11 yet to be served); Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (finding 12 ||}same where plaintiff offered “no evidence other than his own assertions to support his 13 |/claims”). Second, Plaintiff's claams—the majority of which allege civil rights violations 14 |/under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related statutes—are not factually or legally complex. See 15 1. Plaintiff's complaint demonstrates his ability to articulate those claims and the 16 underlying them. See id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not 17 established that extraordinary circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel at this 18 || time. 19 For the reasons set out above, the Court DENIES the motion to appoint counsel 20 || [Dkt. 3]. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 ||Dated: August 23, 2022 24 C) 25 ene Ohta 6 United States District Judge 27 28