Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER that Pla's 8 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice. Pla's 9 Motion to Extend Time to Complete Service is denied, as premature pending Plas return of the service packets. Pla's 10 Motion for Status on Court Screening is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 09/30/09. (ESL)

1 2 3 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William W. Castle, Plaintiff, vs. Eurofresh, Inc., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 09-8114-PCT-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #8), Motion to Extend Time to Complete Service (Doc. #9), and Motion for Status on Court Screening (Doc. #10). Plaintiff's Complaint was filed June 30, 2009; the Court's Screening Order was issued September 21, 2009 (Doc. #11). Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for status as moot and deny Plaintiff's motion to extend time as premature. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot afford counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).

1 2 3 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

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Moreover, Plaintiff's numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion will be denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #8) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Complete Service (Doc. #9), as premature pending Plaintiff's return of the service packets. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Status on Court Screening (Doc. #10), as moot. DATED this 30th day of September, 2009.

-2-