Ramirez v. Arpaio

Filing 23

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 20 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 5/19/11. (SAT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ricardo Ramirez,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio,

13
14
15
16

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 10-1364-PHX-SRB (DKD)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc.20). Plaintiff requests
that the court appoint counsel due to his incarceration.

17

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson

18

v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights

19

case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

20

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

21

In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success

22

on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity.

23

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown

25

that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues

26

involved. Moreover, Plaintiff’s numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion,

27

indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After

28

1

reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present exceptional

2

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 20) is

5
6

DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2011.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-