Newton v. Akkad

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 ANTHONY NEWTON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01402-CDS-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 T. AKKAD et al., 8 Defendants. [9] 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel. ECF 11 No. 39. The Court has reviewed the Motion and Response (ECF No. 40). No timely reply was filed. 12 As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Department of 13 Social Services of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349 , 1353 14 (9th Cir.1981). A court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil 15 litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 16 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining 17 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 18 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 19 of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983). The lack of 20 adequate legal knowledge, even assuming a case is legally complex, is not an exceptional 21 circumstance “in light of the legal competence of most prisoners in similar situations.” Zamaro v. 22 Moonga, 656 F. App’x 297, 299 (9th Cir. 2016). And, “the Constitution does not require the 23 elimination of all economic, intellectual, and technological barriers to litigation.” Sands v. Lewis, [24] 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989). 25 Plaintiff claims that he has limited knowledge of the law and ability to present his case. 26 However, Plaintiff’s involvement in this dispute demonstrates he is able to articulate a cohesive 27 claim. Perez v. Nash, 21-cv-00075-RFB-VCF; see also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 , 1335 1 exceptional circumstances). Further, although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s inexperience 2 with discovery, his underlying claim is neither factually nor legally complex. In the absence of such 3 complexity the appointment of counsel is not warranted. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 , 1017 4 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 For each and all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 6 Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 39) is DENIED. 7 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2022. [9] 10 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE