Gehrke v. Schriro et al

Filing 44

ORDER that Pla's 42 Motion for Appointment of Legal Counsel is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 10/02/09.(ESL, )

Download PDF
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 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Richard Gehrke, Plaintiff, vs. Dora Schriro, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 08-0137-PHX-GMS (DKD) ORDER This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Legal Counsel (Doc.#42). Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot afford counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Moreover, Plaintiff's numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After 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 reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. The Court further notes that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is fully briefed. Defendants take no position regarding Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Legal Counsel (Doc. #42) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 2nd day of October, 2009. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?