Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-00694/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-00694-1/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

Michael R Ward,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Nathaniel Harris, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00694-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

This case arises out of Plaintiff Michael R. Ward’s (“Plaintiff”) claims against 

various defendants under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 

Constitution. (Doc. 105 at 1). Broadly, he claims his rights were violated when prison 

personnel revoked his use of sunglasses, which he claims he needs to stave off myriad 

photosensivity-related symptoms. (Id. at 2–4). The case is currently set for trial on 

November 16, 2020, and Plaintiff now moves for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 106).

Although civil litigants do not enjoy a constitutional right to the appointment of 

counsel, this Court can appoint counsel in pro se and in forma pauperis proceedings when 

“exceptional circumstances” exist. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). A finding of exceptional circumstances “requires at least 

an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of 

the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 

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

Case 2:18-cv-00694-JAT Document 111 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

The Court finds no exceptional circumstances warrant appointing counsel at this 

stage in the litigation. The Court has referred this case to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. 

Burns to conduct a settlement conference, (Doc. 105 at 10), and believes that Plaintiff is 

fully capable of independently deciding whether to settle the case at that conference. Thus, 

the motion will be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff raising a later request for counsel 

if the settlement conference does not result in a settlement.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 106) is 

DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff raising a later request following the settlement 

conference.

Dated this 28th day of April, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-00694-JAT Document 111 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 2