Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01228/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Stuart Othello Carter, Sr. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-1228 PHX ROS (VAM)

)

Maureen Meany, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

On September 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 14). There is no constitutional

right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir.

1982); Randall v. Wyrick, 642 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1981). Moreover,

the only statutory authority creating a basis for appointment is

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), which confers on the court the discretion

to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant. 

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court cannot

compel a lawyer to represent an indigent plaintiff. Mallard v.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

296 (1989). An appointment of counsel may be requested under 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) only in "exceptional circumstances." Aldabe,

616 at 1089; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986).

This rule is derived from Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598,

600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845, 84 S.Ct. 97, 11

Case 2:06-cv-01228-ROS-VAM Document 21 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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 2

L.Ed.2d 72 (1963) which held that "the privilege of pleading in

forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be

allowed only in exceptional circumstances." See Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1328. Weller was extended, without apparent comment, to

"appointment of counsel" in United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792,

794 (9th Cir. 1965). Madden was then cited for the rule in

Alexander v. Ramsey, 539 F.2d 25, 26 (9th Cir. 1976); United

States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1978), on appeal

after remand, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455

U.S. 958, 102 S.Ct. 1470, 71 L.Ed.2d 677 (1983); Aldabe, 616 at

1093; and Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984).

A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation

of both "the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability

of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt v. Look, 718

F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), quoted in Richards v. Harper, 864

F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1988). Neither of these factors is dispositive

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a

request for counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

1331.

Here, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success

on the merits. In addition, plaintiff has failed to show that any

difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate this case

is derived from the complexity of the issues involved. While most

actions, such as the instant case, require development of

supporting facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will

seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts to support

Case 2:06-cv-01228-ROS-VAM Document 21 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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 3

the case, this does not equate with showing the complexity of the

relevant issues. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that the constitutional right of

access to the courts requires that the state provide assistance

only through the pleading stage. Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894,

898 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033, 116 S. Ct. 2580 

(1996). This case is beyond the pleading stage and at the present

time does not present "exceptional circumstances" requiring the

appointment of counsel.

 On October 17, 2006, defendants Lawrence, Baca and Roberts

filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust and for Failure

to State a Claim. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff is advised of the

following specific provisions of LRCiv 7.2, Rules of Practice of

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona:

Subparagraph (e) provides:

Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion

including its supporting memorandum, and the response

including its supporting memorandum, each shall not

exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments

and any required statement of facts. Unless otherwise

permitted by the Court, a reply including its supporting

memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive

of attachments.

Subparagraph (i) provides:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects

with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the

opposing party does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails

to appear at the time and place assigned for oral

argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to

the denial or granting of the motion and the court may

dispose of the motion summarily.

It is plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all

motions. The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendants'

Case 2:06-cv-01228-ROS-VAM Document 21 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Motion to Dismiss may in the discretion of the Court be deemed a

consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and

judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and action with

prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

If defendants' Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of your

complaint for your failure to exhaust all available administrative

remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court may

consider sworn declarations or other admissible evidence beyond

your complaint. Moreover, if defendants produce admissible

evidence demonstrating that you failed to exhaust your

administrative remedies, your complaint will be dismissed without

prejudice unless you produce copies of your grievances and

grievance appeals or other admissible evidence sufficient to show

that you did exhaust all available administrative remedies. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for

appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. (Doc. 14).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until

November 21, 2006 within which to respond to defendants' Motion to

Dismiss. Defendants shall have until December 8, 2006 within

which to file a reply.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01228-ROS-VAM Document 21 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 4