Tamrat
Tamrat v. Rhodes
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HERMAN TAMRAT, Case No. 20-cv-01323-PJH
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. APPOINT COUNSEL; GRANTING
EXTENSION
ERICK RHODES, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 41 Defendants.
12 This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a prisoner. Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of…