West v. Martinez

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [2] 3 JEAN CLAUDE WEST, Case No. 2:23-cv-01489-GMN-EJY [3] 4 Plaintiff, 4 ORDER 5 v. [5] 6 MARTINEZ, et al., [6] 7 Defendants. [8] 9 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 10. In [9] 10 the Motion, Plaintiff asserts he lacks the ability to articulate his claims in light of the complex legal [10] 11 issues involved, that he suffers from mental health disabilities, and that he was shot in the head. Id. [11] 12 As a general proposition, a civil litigant has no right to counsel. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social [12] 13 Services of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18, 30 (1981); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th [13] 14 Cir. 1981). A court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil [14] 15 litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 [15] 16 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining [16] 17 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the [17] 18 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity [18] 19 of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). [19] 20 The Court finds Plaintiff’s instant Motion fails to establish the extraordinary circumstances [20] 21 to support appointment of counsel. The lack of adequate legal knowledge, even assuming a case is [21] 22 legally complex, is not an exceptional circumstance “in light of the legal competence of most [22] 23 prisoners in similar situations.” Zamaro v. Moonga, 656 Fed.Appx. 297, 299 (9th Cir. 2016). And, [23] 24 “the Constitution does not require the elimination of all economic, intellectual, and technological [24] 25 barriers to litigation.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989). See also Perez v. Nash, [25] 26 Case No. 21-cv-00075-RFB-VCF; see also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. [26] 27 1990) (finding that prisoner litigants’ lack of a legal education does not constitute exceptional [27] 28 circumstances). [28] 2 November 8, 2023, Plaintiff was instructed to either pay the filing fee or file a complete IFP [2] 3 application including his financial certificate and inmate trust account statement no later than [3] 4 January 16, 2024. ECF No. 8. The financial certificate and inmate trust account statement provided [4] 5 by Plaintiff at ECF Nos. 7 and 9, together with the IFP application at ECF No.1 comprise a complete [5] 6 IFP application demonstrating Plaintiff’s inability to prepay the filing fee in this matter. Thus, [6] 7 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of [7] 8 any additional fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. However, Plaintiff must make [8] 9 payments toward the $402 filing fee when he has funds available. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s [9] 10 Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and separately issue a screening order. [10] 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of [11] 12 Counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. [12] 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF [13] 14 Nos. 1, 7, 9) is GRANTED; provided, however, that in forma pauperis status will not be extended [14] 15 to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. [15] 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial installment [16] 17 fee; however, the filing fee is still due under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as amended by the Prisoner Litigation [17] 18 Reform Act. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of [18] 19 prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefore. [19] 20 The Court will issue a screening order regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint. [20] 21 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2024. [23] 23 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE