1 – OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

BULE S. AHMED,

Plaintiff, 

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01231-ST

OPINION AND ORDER

STEWART, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff, Bule S. Ahmed, was granted in forma pauperis status (docket #2) and now has 

filed a Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (docket #10). For the following reasons, 

that motion is denied with leave to renew at a later time.

Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. United States v. 

$292,888.04, 54 F3d 564, 569 (9

th Cir 1995) (“$292.888.04”). However, pursuant to the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, 28 USC ' 1915(e)(1), this court has discretion to request volunteer 

counsel for indigent plaintiffs in exceptional circumstances. Id; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F2d 

1332, 1335 (9

th Cir 1990); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir 1986). While this 

court may request volunteer counsel in exceptional circumstances, it has no power to make a 

Case 3:14-cv-01231-ST Document 12 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 3
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

mandatory appointment. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court of Iowa, 490 US 296, 301-08 (1989). 

There are no funds available to pay the services of such volunteer counsel.

In order to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, this court evaluates the 

plaintiff=s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the pro se plaintiff to articulate 

his or her claim in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. $292,888.04, 54 F3d at 

569; Wood, 900 F2d at 1335-36; Wilborn, 789 F2d at 1331. However, “[n]either of these factors 

is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel 

under section 1915(d).” Wilborn, 789 F2d at 1331; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F2d 1015, 1017 (9th 

Cir 1991).

Plaintiff has filed a form Complaint for Employment Discrimination alleging that he was 

discriminated against and harassed by his former employer from November 12, 2012, to July 9, 

2013, based on his national origin and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, 42 USC § 2000e, and Oregon law, ORS 659A.030. He has filed a Notice of Right to Sue 

letter (docket #11) from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries dated May 2, 2014, making 

his Complaint timely filed. His claims are sufficiently alleged for this court and defendant to 

comprehend and address his legal theories. 

In support of his motion, plaintiff states that he has sought legal counsel but “was unable 

to afford travel costs, consultation fees, and continued [sic] lawyer search.” If plaintiff prevails

on his claim either under federal or state law, the governing statutes allow him to recover his 

attorney fees. Given that incentive, plaintiff should be able to find an attorney to represent him 

on a contingency fee basis which does not require them to pay attorney fees. Plaintiff is urged to 

contact the Lawyer Referral Services listed on the last page of the Guide for Self-Represented 

Parties found on the court’s website under “Representing Yourself in Court.” 

Case 3:14-cv-01231-ST Document 12 Filed 08/20/14 Page 2 of 3
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

If circumstances change after defendant has filed its appearance, then the court may 

reconsider whether to appoint pro bono counsel for plaintiff upon a more detailed showing of 

efforts made by him to obtain legal counsel. However, at this stage of the proceedings, there are 

no exceptional circumstances warranting the plaintiff’s effort to obtain volunteer counsel. 

Therefore, plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (docket #10) is DENIED. 

DATED August 20, 2014.

s/ Janice M. Stewart

Janice M. Stewart

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01231-ST Document 12 Filed 08/20/14 Page 3 of 3