(PS) Fernandez v. Duffy

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GRACE FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEAN DUFFY,
Defendant.
No. 2:25-cv-3501 DC AC (PS)
ORDER
The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff is
proceeding in this civil action in pro se.
I. 	Motion
Plaintiff asks the court to appoint counsel due to the complexity of her case and her lack
of knowledge of the legal process. ECF No. 12 at 2. Plaintiff has attempted to find affordable
counsel over multiple years, but all of her requests have been denied. Id. Plaintiff previously
filed a case in pro se that was dismissed without prejudice due to her lack of knowledge of the
service process. Id. at 1.
II. 	Analysis
In civil cases, appointment of counsel for a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a right.”
United States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted).
“Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining
Case 2:25-cv-03501-DC-AC Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 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
2
whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 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).
Having considered the relevant factors and reviewed the complaint (ECF No. 1), the court
finds that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is
not warranted at this time.
III. 	Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 15, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-03501-DC-AC Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2