Background:

• Plaintiff Larry John Curlee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit on January 29, 2020 seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits.
• Curlee stated he is housed at Coalinga State Hospital voluntarily for treatment and evaluation.
• Curlee filed a third motion for appointment of counsel on November 24, 2021, contemporaneous with an opening brief; the court had previously denied two prior counsel requests.
• The court reviewed Curlee’s complaint, exhibits, and the opening brief and found he can clearly articulate his claims and cited legal authority.
• Defendant had not filed substantive briefing, so the court could not assess likelihood of success on the merits at this stage.
• Applying the Ninth Circuit’s “exceptional circumstances” standard for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court concluded exceptional circumstances do not exist and denied the motion.

Issues:

Key Cases Cited

• Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (establishes exceptional‑circumstances test for appointment of counsel in forma pauperis)
• Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (court cannot compel volunteer counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
• Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (likelihood of success and ability to articulate claims must be considered together)
• LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1987) (appointment of counsel is discretionary and not required absent exceptional circumstances)
• Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (court may deny counsel where pro se litigant can adequately present claims)