Koch v. Jacobs et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying Plaintiff's "Request for Appointment of Counsel" and "Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting Claims and Documents" (Docs. 7 , 8 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 7/6/18. (DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony Michael Koch,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-08068-PCT-DLR (ESW)

Brad Jacobs, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has

15
16

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court

17

ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Plaintiff’s excessive force claim set

18

forth in Count One (Doc. 5 at 4). Service was executed on each Defendant by Waiver of

19

Service of Summons filed July 2, 2018 (Docs. 9, 10). The time to file an answer has not

20

run.

21

On May 29, 2018 and again on June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed “Request for

22

Appointment of Counsel” and “Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting

23

Claims and Documents” (Docs. 7, 8).

24

appointment of counsel because Plaintiff (i) is indigent without resources, (ii) possesses

25

limited legal knowledge and the case is complex, (iii) has limited access to the law

26

library, and (iv) has been unsuccessful in obtaining counsel.

In each motion, Plaintiff is requesting the

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

litigants. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s “Request for Appointment of Counsel” and

19

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting Claims and Documents” (Docs. 7,

20

8).

21

Accordingly,

22

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Request for Appointment of Counsel” and

23

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting Claims and Documents” (Docs. 7,

24

8).

25

Dated this 6th day of July, 2018.

26

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28

-2-