Montoya v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 10/19/18. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Christopher Montoya,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-08025-PCT-DGC (ESW)

State of Arizona, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Christopher Montoya, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-

17

Kingman (ASP-Kingman) in Kingman, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights First Amended

18

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 9). The Court ordered Defendant Herrick

19

to answer Court Three of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10 at 10).

20

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

21

15). Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him counsel because (i) Plaintiff is indigent,

22

(ii) the medical issues in his case will require medical experts and dissemination of

23

Plaintiff’s confidential medical records to a medical expert, and (iii) Plaintiff will need to

24

be questioned by counsel during his trial.

25

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

26

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

27

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In pro se and in forma

28

pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority “to make coercive

1

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310

2

(1989). District courts, however, do have the discretion to request that an attorney

3

represent an indigent civil litigant upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. Of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103

5

(9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination

6

with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of the likelihood of

7

success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

8

light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these factors is

9

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting

10

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

11

Plaintiff’s filings with the Court indicate that Plaintiff is capable of navigating this

12

proceeding and presenting arguments to the Court. Having considered the likelihood of

13

success on the merits and Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims, the Court does not

14

find that exceptional circumstances are present that would require the appointment of

15

counsel in this case. Plaintiff remains in a position no different than many pro se prisoner

16

litigants. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 15).

17

CONCLUSION

18

For the reasons set forth herein,

19

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.

20
21

15).
Dated this 19th day of October, 2018.

22
23
24

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-