Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02772/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02772-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

– 1 – 18cv2772

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARAH MCENDREE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2772-BAS-NLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

[ECF No. 2]

v.

HELEN LOZANO,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Sarah McEndree’s motion to appoint counsel on 

her behalf. (ECF No. 2.) The sole basis of Plaintiff’s motion is that she is unable to 

pay the cost of an attorney. She states that she is “disabled and on welfare,” and “can 

produce doctor’s disability determination paperwork and EBT card upon demand.” 

(Id. at 3.) For the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case 

unless an indigent litigant may lose her physical liberty if she loses the litigation. 

Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Even where the plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se or in forma pauperis, district courts do not have the authority “to 

make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 310 (1989). However, “the court may request an attorney to represent any 

Case 3:18-cv-02772-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 18cv2772

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

person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). In the Ninth Circuit, “the 

decision to appoint such counsel is within the sound discretion of the trial court and 

is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). A finding that 

exceptional circumstances exist entails “an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of 

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is 

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Terrell v. 

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff makes no attempt to argue that exceptional circumstances exist such 

that this Court should request an attorney represent her. Rather, the sole basis 

Plaintiff advances is that she cannot afford counsel. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, 

the inability to afford counsel by itself is not a sufficient basis for a court order 

requesting counsel for a pro se plaintiff. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. This is 

true even when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and thus, by definition, 

has shown an inability to afford the cost to initiate proceedings in federal court. See 

United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793–94 (9th Cir. 1965). It would be 

inappropriate for this Court to hold Plaintiff—who is not proceeding in forma 

pauperis—to a lesser standard than a plaintiff who is proceeding as such.

Plaintiff otherwise fails to show that exceptional circumstances exist in this 

case to warrant an order requesting appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has not 

provided any evidence that she has a likelihood of success on the merits. A plaintiff

that provides no evidence of her likelihood of success fails to satisfy the first factor 

of the Wilborn test. See Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993); 

see also Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (concluding 

likelihood of success not shown where the plaintiff did not present any evidence other 

Case 3:18-cv-02772-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 18cv2772

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

than his own assertions to support his claims). Even at this nascent stage of the 

litigation, the Court has doubts whether Plaintiff will succeed on the merits given the 

incoherent and disparate nature of her allegations. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02772-BAS-NLS Document 3 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3