Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02250/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02250-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333in Personal Injury

---

– 1 – 17cv2250

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

JANET PALMER-CARRI, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-02250-BAS-JLB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

v [ECF No. 5].

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN 

AFFAIRS, et al., 

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Janet Palmer-Carri’s motion to appoint 

counsel on her behalf. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff states that she has made various efforts 

to obtain counsel, but has been unsuccessful. (Id. at 3.) In her motion, she indicates 

that she has been turned away by several lawyers. (Id.) Plaintiff indicates that even 

if she could obtain a lawyer, she would not be able to afford the costs of assistance 

rendered. (Id.) In support of her motion, Plaintiff has attached an affidavit detailing 

her sources of income and monthly expenses. (Id. at 4–6.) For the reasons below,

the Court denies Plaintiff’s request.

I. DISCUSSION

A. 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. 

Case 3:17-cv-02250-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 17cv2250

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

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 

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)). 

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion does not aver 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 inconsistent 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. First, Plaintiff has not 

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

Case 3:17-cv-02250-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 17cv2250

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

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 

than his own assertions to support his claims). In any event, at this nascent stage of 

the litigation, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff has a likelihood of 

success on the merits based on the pleadings. Second, the Court finds that the case 

is not sufficiently complex that Plaintiff cannot articulate her asserted claims. See, 

e.g., Williams v. ICC Committee, 812 F. Supp. 1029, 1034 (N.D Cal. 1992). 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 5.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02250-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3