Arellano
Arellano v. Blahnik
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-MSB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. No. 190] 11 BLAHNIK, Defendants. 14 15 16 On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff Raul Arellano filed a motion for counsel to assist him with the upcoming evidentiary hearing regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies. [Doc. No. 190.] As Plaintiff is aware, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). And while 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) grants the district court limited discretion to “request” that an attorney represent an indigent civil litigant, Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), this discretion is exercised only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional…