Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02514/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02514-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANAI MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATASHA CHRONISTER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2514-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER

(ECF No. 9)

On December 13, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and accompanying motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP).1 (ECF Nos. 1, 2). The Court granted the IFP request on January 29, 2020. 

(ECF No. 4.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing from February 14, 2020, entitled 

“motion to appoint counsel,” which is a Form 24 from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF 

No. 9.) Therein, Plaintiff asserts she has moved to proceed IFP, and her case is a civil appeal or 

petition for review. (Id.) This motion is construed as one to appoint counsel in the district court. 

Any successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria set forth 

in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before 

appointing counsel to a plaintiff, the court must consider (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the 

efforts already made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 

302(c)(21).

Case 2:19-cv-02514-KJM-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/20/20 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

merits. Id. at 1318. “The plaintiff has the burden of proof and must meet all three factors.”

Reddy v. Precyse Sols. LLC, 2013 WL 2603413, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013) (citing Castner 

v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir.1992)). Appointment of counsel 

is not a matter of right. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, 

“counsel may be designated under section 1915(d) only in ‘exceptional circumstances’. . . 

[which] requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of 

the petitioner to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (cleaned up). 

Because Plaintiff has previously been granted IFP status, the Court finds the first

Bradshaw factor is met. However, the Court declines to appoint counsel based on the second and 

third Bradshaw factors simply because Plaintiff’s filing provides no information on her efforts to 

obtain counsel or her argument as to the likelihood of success on her merits. However, even if 

Plaintiff could provide more information at this time, the third factor counsels against 

appointment. Though the Court has granted Plaintiff IFP status and ordered service––finding her 

Complaint potentially states claims—it is too soon in the litigation to tell whether Plaintiff can 

succeed on the merits. Further, the Court sees no “exceptional circumstance” that would warrant 

counsel to be appointed. The “exceptional circumstances” standard is met through evaluation of 

the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of plaintiffs to articulate their claims in light 

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygtandt v. 

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Not only is the ‘success on the merits’ prong deficient, 

the Court sees no complex issues currently active. This case is still in its initial phase, and 

Plaintiff has been given simple instructions to serve Defendants (which she may not have 

completed yet). The Court therefore does not find this matter to be so complex as to warrant the 

appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF 

No. 9) is DENIED.

Dated: February 20, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02514-KJM-KJN Document 10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2