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)

Download PDF
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-

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?