Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180503_0003015.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:51:15+00:00

Document:
PETER K. CHO, et al., Defendants.
Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 22) and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 18.) The Court's Order to Show Cause directed Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See Dkt. No. 21.) Having considered Plaintiff's Response, the Court hereby ORDERS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). A court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but an appointment of counsel should only be granted under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Because Plaintiff failed to establish either that the search of his person and property was more extensive or intensive than necessary or that it was unreasonably prolonged, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion to Appoint Counsel.
In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or comply with a Court order, the Court must assess the following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Pagtalunun v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).
“The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff has failed to serve Defendants for more than five months. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

References: v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.