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)

Download PDF
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-

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?