Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-0195 MMC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 4)

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Because

plaintiff is not an indigent litigant who may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation,

there is no right to appointment of counsel in this case, see Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), nor are funds available to compensate appointed

counsel. Nonetheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Such a request for counsel “is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” See Agyeman

v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation

and citation omitted). A finding of such “exceptional circumstances” requires “an evaluation

of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s

ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” See id. 

Here, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot determine the likelihood of

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 8 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

plaintiff’s prevailing on the merits of his claims. Moreover, plaintiff has been able to

articulate the basis of his claims adequately without the assistance of counsel.

Accordingly, plaintiff's request is DENIED without prejudice.

This order terminates Docket No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 8 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2