Moorman v. Arpaio et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 7/2/12.(REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Sean Moorman,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-1290-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER

15

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 35). Plaintiff

16

requests that the court appoint counsel because he cannot afford counsel, needs assistance with

17

the case, and because the issues in this matter are complex. (Id.)

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

The Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel

26

(Docs. 8, 17). Plaintiff has again failed to demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.

6
7

35) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 2nd day of July, 2012.

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

-2-