Free Order on Ex Parte Application - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01532-MMC

Document 25

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 22, 2008, as well as a second motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 29, 2008. The Court may appoint a pro se plaintiff counsel where the plaintiff demonstrates the presence of "exceptional circumstances." See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F. 2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 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." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, by separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has dismissed plaintiff's complaint and, in so ruling, has found plaintiff has no likelihood of success on the merits. Further, although plaintiff's claims lack merit, plaintiff is able to fully articulate the v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant / LARRY RICHARDS, Plaintiff, No. C-08-1532 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:08-cv-01532-MMC

Document 25

Filed 05/05/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

basis for his claims.1 Accordingly, the motions for appointment of counsel are hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

To the extent plaintiff seeks counsel in light of plaintiff's asserted inability to attend court proceedings because of his impairments, plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are moot in light of the dismissal of the instant action. 2

1