Pruitt v. Ryan et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 11/24/15.(KGM)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sherman Terrell Pruitt,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel and

16

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 39). Plaintiff is

17

incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis and has filed a civil rights First

18

Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests the appointment of

19

counsel for the following reasons:

20

imprisonment limits his ability to litigate; (3) Plaintiff has limited knowledge of the law;

21

and (4) Plaintiff’s attempts to secure counsel on his own have been unsuccessful.

(1) the issues in his case are complex; (2)

22

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See

23

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of

24

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court

25

may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants

26

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.

27

2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)).

28

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the

1

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his

2

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d

3

at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). See also Terrell v.

4

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citing

6

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

“Neither of these considerations is

7

Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional

8

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case.

9

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown

10

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

11

issues involved. Plaintiff’s filings with the Court, as well as the instant motion, indicate

12

that Plaintiff is capable of navigating his proceedings and presenting arguments to the

13

Court. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was required to establish successfully

14

the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of

15

further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). Plaintiff is in no

16

different position that many pro se prisoner litigants.

17

exceptional circumstances are present, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will

18

be denied. Accordingly,

19
20
21

Having failed to show that

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 39) is denied.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2015.

22
23
24

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-