Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Sylvia Nicole’s third motion to appoint counsel in her bankruptcy appeal. The court found that her assertions regarding fraud, unresolved issues, and alleged legal errors were conclusory and that she had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or an inability to litigate the appeal pro se.
Holdings
- Appointment of counsel was not warranted because Nicole failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, including a likelihood of success on the merits or an inability to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the issues.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should appoint counsel for an indigent litigant in a bankruptcy appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Sariol v. Fitzgerald, No. C16-0835JLR, 2016 WL 8808819, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 27, 2016)(applied by analogy)
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…