Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05614/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05614-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

NO. C 09-5614 RS

ORDER

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 

*E-Filed 04/26/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CHOONYOUN LEE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AT&T CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-5614 RS 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 By letter dated April 20, 2010, plaintiff Choonyoun Lee seeks appointed counsel in this 

lawsuit against defendant corporation AT&T. Plaintiff explains that since the initiation of the 

lawsuit, Lee has only found employment on a sporadic and temporary basis. Although no attorney 

has entered an appearance on plaintiff’s behalf before this Court, Lee claims to have retained 

counsel but that the attorney has not agreed to provide representation should the matter proceed to 

trial. 

Generally, a person has no right to appointed counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). A court may under “exceptional circumstances” 

appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. 

Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 

Case 3:09-cv-05614-RS Document 15 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 3
NO. C 09-5614 

ORDER

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

circumstances” exist, a court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive; rather, they must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). 

Lee has presented no evidence of indigency, or that the circumstances are “exceptional” 

within the meaning described above. Accordingly, there is no legal basis to support the appointment 

of counsel and the request is denied. 

Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the 

Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415/782.9000 x8657 or signing up for an 

appointment on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the Legal Help Center, plaintiff 

may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not legal representation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/26/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 3:09-cv-05614-RS Document 15 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 3
NO. C 09-5614 

ORDER

3 

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 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY 

PROVIDED* TO: 

Caren P. Sencer courtnotices@unioncounsel.net 

David Albert Rosenfeld courtnotices@unioncounsel.net 

John H Curley jcurley@att.com 

AND A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Choonyoun Lee 

1571 East Gate Way 

Pleasanton, CA 94566 

DATED: 04/26/2010 

 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not 

registered with the Court’s electronic filing system. 

 

Case 3:09-cv-05614-RS Document 15 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 3