Order on Counsel
Motion Images
Motion Text
Self-represented Plaintiff, Logan Martin Isaac, proceeding in forma pauperis, brought this action against Oregon legislators and legislative staff who allegedly deprived him of his constitutional rights. The Court screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 13 ("SAC"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court found Plaintiff's SAC subject to dismissal in part (Order re SAC, ECF No. 14) and ordered service of surviving claims on Defendants (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff now renews his request for the Court to appoint him pro bono counsel. Because Plaintiff does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances, Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). However, a court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in "exceptional circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Whether "exceptional circumstances" exist depends on two factors to be viewed together: "the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The decision to appoint counsel is "within the sound discretion of the trial court." Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quotation marks omitted).
Appointment of pro bono counsel is not appropriate here. First, at this early stage of litigation, the Court cannot conclude Plaintiff has demonstrated he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims even if some have survived screening. E.g., Gener v. Trump, 2025 WL 3067906, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 3, 2025) (citing Fierro v. Smith, No. 19-16786, 2022 WL 2437526, at *1–2 (9th Cir. July 5, 2022)). Even if Plaintiff will face certain challenges pursuing and presenting his case, his circumstances are not exceptionally different from the same challenges faced by most self-represented litigants asserting constitutional claims. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). A need to further develop facts and arguments following the pleading stage is not an exceptional circumstance for Plaintiff. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) ("If all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues."); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding lack of access to legal materials constituted type of "difficult[y] which any litigant would have in proceeding pro se" and was therefore not an "exceptional factor[]"). Indeed, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to state his allegations with sufficient clarity to pass screening such that his claims may be heard on the merits. Plaintiff's financial hardship also does not provide a legally sufficient reason for the Court to find exceptional circumstances here; nearly every litigant proceeding in forma pauperis and requesting court appointed counsel faces financial difficulties in retaining their own attorney.[1]
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. This denial shall be without prejudice and Plaintiff may once again renew his Motion at a later time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] Plaintiff is also advised of the resources on the District of Oregon's website, which contains a webpage titled "Information about Representing Yourself in Court," available to the public at https://www.ord.uscourts.gov/index.php/representing-yourself/information-about-representing-yourself. In addition, while the Court expresses no endorsement of these resources, Plaintiff may seek assistance through the Federal Bar Association's free Law Clinic program, https://oregonfederalbarassociation.org/federal-law-clinic, or a legal services provider listed on the Oregon Legal Aid Directory, https://oregonlawhelp.org/find-legal-help.
