Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01587/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01587-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AJAY SINGHAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01587 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Ajay Singhal’s request for appointment of counsel 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, unless an indigent litigant may lose his

physical liberty if he loses the litigation, a situation not presented by this case. See Lassiter v.

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in Section 1983 action), withdrawn in part on

other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc.) However, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to

afford counsel.” 

This Court has discretion in considering whether to appoint counsel under section

1915(e)(1) and, in general, that discretion should be exercised only in exceptional

circumstances. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. In making that determination, the Court considers the

likelihood of a plaintiff’s success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his or her

claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Agyeman v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 9 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

While this Order should not be construed as a prejudgment of Singhal’s claims, at this

time the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel as this case does not appear

to present an exceptional circumstance meriting appointment of counsel. Accordingly,

Singhali’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

In addition, without making any endorsement in this regard, Plaintiff is advised that the

Alameda County Bar Association operates a lawyer referral service which may be helpful in

securing pro bono counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 9 Filed 04/19/07 Page 2 of 2