Labatad v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying without prejudice 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 3/3/11.(DMT)

-DKD Labatad v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Doc. 24

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

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Keone Labatad,

No. CIV 10-2619-PHX-ROS (DKD)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 23). Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot afford counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex. (Id.) 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. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. Accordingly,

Dockets.Justia.com

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 23) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 3rd day of March, 2011.

-2-