1 – OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANDREA OLSON, 

No. 3:15-cv-2216-HZ

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.

MBO PARTNERS, INC., 

Defendant.

Andrea Olson

3404 SW Comus Street

Portland, OR 97219

Pro se Plaintiff

Eric H. Rumbaugh

Kirk A. Pelikan

MICHAEL BEST

100 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 3300

Milwaukee, WI 53202
2 – OPINION & ORDER

Jenna Leigh Mooney

Kalia Walker

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP

1300 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2400

Portland, OR 97201

Attorneys for Defendant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Plaintiff Andrea Olson brings this employment discrimination action against Defendant 

MBO Partners, Inc. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which 

was denied. Now, Plaintiff brings another motion for appointment of counsel, contending that 

she is unable to represent herself due to her disability of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 

Pl.’s Mot. 1, ECF 40. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

A district court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). There is not, however, a constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. 

United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision to appoint 

counsel is “within the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 

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

(quotation marks and citation omitted). A finding of exceptional circumstances depends on two 

factors: the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, and the plaintiff's ability to articulate 

her claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Neither factor is dispositive 

and both must be viewed together before ruling on a request for counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff has not requested in forma pauperis status, nor has she provided the Court with 

sufficient information to determine that she meets the requirements of an indigent party as 

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated 
3 – OPINION & ORDER

a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has she demonstrated an inability to articulate her 

claims. Accordingly, there are no exceptional circumstances that support the appointment of 

counsel under § 1915(e).

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Amended 

Complaint,” which was filed on August 1, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff 

to comply with Local Rule 15-1 and provided her with 10 days to submit an amended motion. 

See Order, August 10, 2016, ECF 36. When Plaintiff asked for an extension of time to comply 

and for clarification of this Court’s order, the Court granted the extension and provided 

additional guidance regarding what Plaintiff must do in order for this Court to consider her 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint. See Order, August 23, 2016, ECF 39. The Court 

ordered Plaintiff to submit a proposed amended complaint by September 7, 2016. Id. Instead of 

complying with this Court’s August 23, 2016 order, Plaintiff filed the present motion for 

appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff is given one final opportunity to submit a proposed amended complaint within 

10 days of this order. If Plaintiff fails to submit a proposed amended complaint that complies 

with this Court’s August 23, 2016 order, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file 

an amended complaint and will proceed using Plaintiff’s original complaint as the operative 

complaint in this case. 

///

///
4 – OPINION & ORDER

CONCLUSION

The Court denies Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appointed Counsel as a Reasonable 

Accommodation” [40]. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed amended complaint within 10 

days of the date below.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this ____________day of ________________________, 2016.

 

________________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge