Franklin v. Backhaus et al

Filing 17

ORDER, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 16 is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 5/16/14.(REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joseph Lee Franklin,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Keith Backhaus, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-13-2390-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

15

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 16). Plaintiff

16

requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, has limited access to the

17

law library, and cannot afford counsel. (Id.)

18

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

19

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

20

case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

21

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

22

In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success

23

on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity.

24

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

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

26

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

27

involved. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present

28

exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. Accordingly,

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
16) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 16th day of May, 2014.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-