David Alberts, Ph.D. v. Broadway Tower Associates, L.P. et al

1
25-cv-2908-RSH-SBC
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID ALBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROADWAY TOWER ASSOCIATES,
L.P., a California limited partnership, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-2908-RSH-SBC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 5]
On October 28, 2025, plaintiff David Alberts filed a complaint against Defendants
and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. On November
24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, screened the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to effectuate
service of the Complaint and summons. ECF No. 3.
On November 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel, on the grounds
that “he lacks the ability to litigate this case without counsel.” ECF No. 5 at 4.
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and the decision to appoint
counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and
is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390
Case 3:25-cv-02908-RSH-SBC Document 6 Filed 12/02/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-2908-RSH-SBC
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
F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.
1991) 	(noting 	that 	only 	“exceptional 	circumstances” 	support 	such 	a 	discretionary
appointment). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the party
seeking counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court must
consider the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the pro se litigant to
articulate his claims in light of their legal complexity. Id.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the requisite burden here. Nothing in
Plaintiff’s pleading or in his IFP application reflects that he is incapable of articulating the
basis for his claims. Additionally, although Plaintiff’s complaint passes screening, neither
the complaint itself nor Plaintiff’s application as yet demonstrates a likelihood of success
on the merits. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel [ECF No. 5] without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2025
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02908-RSH-SBC Document 6 Filed 12/02/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2