Zolnierz v. Arpaio et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 38 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. (See document for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/17/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Douglas John Zolnierz,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-146-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and/or Guardian

17

Ad Litem (Doc. 38). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See

18

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court,

19

however, does have the discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” See

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe

21

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

22

requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the

23

petitioner to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

24

involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th

25

Cir. 1983)); see Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). “Neither of these

26

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request

27

of counsel” under section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

28

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a

1

likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to

2

litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While Plaintiff has pointed

3

to difficulties that he is experiencing, such difficulties do not make his case exceptional.

4

Accordingly, at the present time, this case does not present “exceptional circumstances”

5

requiring the appointment of counsel.

6
7
8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and/or
Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. 38).
DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-