Carroll v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 23

ORDER that Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 2/8/2013.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Arthur Guyland Carroll, No. CV-12-0957-PHX-ROS (DKD) ORDER 15 This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 21). Plaintiff requests 16 that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s 17 request (Doc. 22). 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 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown 26 that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues 27 involved. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present 28 exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 21) is 3 4 DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 8th day of February, 2013. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?