Washington v. Fannie Mae et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 36 and 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/8/13.(LSP)

Washington v. Fannie Mae et al

1

Doc. 39

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV-12-01850-PHX-GMS

Lilly Washington,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Fannie Mae, named as FNMA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Someone to Represent Me at

16

Settlement Conference (Doc. 36) and Motion to Ask for Help to Have One Attorney

17

(Doc. 37). The Court will treat both motions as Motions to Appoint Counsel.

18

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd.

19

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

20

does have the discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” See 28

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). “Neither

27

of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a

28

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

Dockets.Justia.com

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated
a likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty she is experiencing in
attempting to litigate her case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While
Plaintiff has pointed to difficulties understanding that she is experiencing, such
difficulties do not make her case exceptional. Accordingly, at the present time, this case
does not present “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that both Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 36, 37) are
denied.
Dated this 8th day of August, 2013.

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