Jones # 202414 v. Forbs et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/26/12.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Theodore Jacob Jones,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

CO II Forbs, et al.,

13

Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA)
ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, doc. 12.

15
16

Plaintiff, in essence, alleges that his litigation is complex and that his imprisonment will

17

greatly limit his ability to litigate his 42 U.S.C. §1983 case.
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Johnson

18
19

v. U.S. Dep’t. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

20

however, provides that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable

21

to afford counsel.” Although the subject statute gives the trial court broad discretion

22

whether the appointment of counsel is warranted, the Ninth Circuit has limited the exercise

23

of that power to exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

24

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

25

determining whether to appoint counsel, the court must evaluate both the likelihood of

26

success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims claims,

27

pro se, in view of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.

28

1990).

1

At this point, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor

2

has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the

3

complexity of the issues involved. Nor has Plaintiff shown that he has had difficulty in

4

articulating his case or position. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel

5

because no exceptional circumstances exist in this case. The Court may revisit this issue, if

6

appropriate, at a later date.

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, doc. 12, is

9
10

DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 26th of July, 2012.

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