1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AL ASALI, an individual, Case No.: 24-CV-398 TWR (JLB)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT

13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND

14 THE CHICAGO SCHOOL OF (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY;

15 MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF DR. JOHN SHUSTITSKY, an individual;

TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO

16 and DR. ADRIENNE SULLIVAN,

SHOW CAUSE

an individual, 17 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) 18

19 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Al Asali’s Request for Appointment of 20 Counsel (“Mot. to Appoint Counsel,” ECF No. 4) and Plea to Grant an Extra Time to 21 Present Order to Show Cause (“Mot. for Extension of Time” or “MET,” ECF No. 5), filed 22 in response to the Court’s March 4, 2024 Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why This 23 Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (“OSC,” ECF 24 No. 3). Having considered Plaintiff’s filings and the relevant law, the Court DENIES 25 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and GRANTS 26 Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, as follows. 27 Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, “[g]enerally, a person has no right 28 to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Under 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may “appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants” 2 based on a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Id. (citing Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. 3 of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005)). In 4 determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court considers (1) the 5 “likelihood of success on the merits” and (2) “the ability of the petitioner to articulate his 6 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (quoting 7 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 8 Here, Plaintiff indicates that he has “been granted, or ha[s] applied for, permission 9 to proceed in forma pauperis.” (See Mot. to Appoint Counsel at 1.) To the contrary, 10 Plaintiff paid the $405 filing fee. (See ECF No. 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff must attach an 11 affidavit demonstrating his inability to pay for an attorney. (See Mot. to Appoint Counsel 12 at 1); see also United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (“When a 13 claim of poverty is made under section 1915 ‘it is proper and indeed essential for the 14 supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, 15 definiteness and certainty.’” (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th 16 Cir. 1960))); Chaker v. Adams, No. 10CV2599-GPCBGS, 2015 WL 410552, at *2 (S.D. 17 Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (denying motion to appoint counsel filed by pro se plaintiff not 18 proceeding in forma pauperis where she failed to provide a financial affidavit 19 demonstrating her indigency). Although Plaintiff indicates that his income “do[es] no[t] 20 exceed $1000.00 a month,” (see Mot. to Appoint Counsel at 2), this does not provide 21 sufficient information regarding Plaintiff’s monthly expenses, assets, and other financial 22 obligations for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff is indigent for purposes of 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915. Further, given the pendency of the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court 24 cannot conclude that Plaintiff has demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the 25 merits. The Court therefore necessarily DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel 26 (ECF No. 4), WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion supported by 27 a sufficiently detailed affidavit at a later date after subject-matter jurisdiction has been 28 established. 1 As for Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff requests “some extra time 2 || to respond to the court order . . . to gather the evidence [he] need[s] or to find an attorney.” 3 ||(See MET at 2.) Although Plaintiff does not specify how much additional time he requires, 4 ||the Court concludes that an additional three weeks is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court 5 GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 5), and Plaintiff SHALL 6 || RESPOND to the Court’s Order to Show Cause on or before April 23, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: April 2, 2024 — 9 [ odd (2 re 10 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28