Jarrett v. Arpaio et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 8/14/2013.(LFIG)

Jarrett v. Arpaio et al

1

Doc. 27

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ricky Lee Jarrett,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-13-0440-PHX-JAT (DKD)

ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 19).

16

Plaintiff’s first request for the appointment of counsel was denied on June 6, 2013 (Doc. 8). As

17

previously stated, there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See

18

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

19

civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer,

20

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

21

1986)). Plaintiff has again failed to demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and has

22

not shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of

23

the issues involved. Accordingly,

24
25
26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(Doc. 19).
DATED this 14th day of August, 2013.

27
28

Dockets.Justia.com