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)

Download PDF
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-

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?