Eldridge #147718 v. Schroeder

Filing 28

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 4/22/15. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joseph Gerald Lee Eldridge,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV14-01325-DGC (ESW)

JD Schroeder,

13

Defendants.

14

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

15

24). Plaintiff asserts that his case in complex, his ability to litigate is limited by his

16

incarceration and hospitalization, credibility will be an issue regarding the witnesses,

17

Plaintiff is indigent, Plaintiff is not trained in the law, Plaintiff has a seizure disorder, and

18

Plaintiff needs assistance with expert witnesses.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F3.d at 970 (citing

3

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

“Neither of these considerations is

4

Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

different position that many pro se prisoner litigants.

14

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

15

be denied. Accordingly,

16
17
18

Having failed to show that

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 24) is
denied.
Dated this 22nd day of April, 2015.

19
20
21

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-