Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01639/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01639-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TERRY L WEISS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01639-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 66 

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

In contrast to criminal proceedings, there generally is no constitutional right to counsel in 

civil actions. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) (“There is 

normally . . . no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.”). This decision of whether to 

request counsel is within the discretion of the district court and is “granted only in exceptional 

circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). Deciding whether 

“exceptional circumstances” exist requires an evaluation of the likelihood of plaintiff’s success on 

the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

This case does not present an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of 

counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. However, the 

Court itself pays close attention to the legal issues addressed in the filing and has referred the 

parties to a magistrate judge to attempt to resolve the matter without further legal proceedings. 

The Court understands the difficulties that pro se litigants encounter and has available, 
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

through the Court’s website, http://cand.uscourts.gov, a “Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,” which 

contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney. The Court also advises 

plaintiff that additional assistance may be available by making an appointment with the Legal 

Help Center. There is no fee for this service. Please visit the Court’s website or call the phone 

numbers listed below for current office hours, forms, and policies. 

To make an appointment with the Legal Help Center in Oakland, plaintiff may visit the 

Oakland Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Room 470S, Oakland, California, 94612, or call 

(415) 782-8982. 

To make an appointment with the Legal Help Center in San Francisco, plaintiff may visit 

the San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San 

Francisco, California, 94102, or call (415) 782-8982. 

To make an appointment with the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center in San Jose, 

plaintiff may visit the San Jose Federal Courthouse, located at 280 South 1st Street, 4th Floor, 

Rooms 4093 & 4095, San Jose, California, 95113, or call (408) 297-1480. 

This Order Terminates Docket Number 66. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE