Bass

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel for pro se plaintiff Lamont Shepard in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Courts may appoint counsel in civil cases only in “exceptional circumstances,” a determination that calls for evaluation “of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). The district court assumed that Shepard would be entitled to relief if he proved the factual allegations underlying his claims and thus took into account Shepard’s likelihood of success on the merits. However, the record reveals no indication that’ Shepard had difficulty articulating his claims. Shepard filed numerous motions and pleadings that cogently articulated his legal arguments, and he succeeded in defeating Officer Bass’s motion for summary judgment. We thus dis cern no abuse of discretion in denying the request for counsel.

2. The district court erred, however,…