Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01224/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01224-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

 Even though Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis in this case, the Court is

applying the indigent litigant standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because in her motion Plaintiff

states that she cannot afford a lawyer.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diane Bethel, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Equity Residential, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1224-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 14). There

is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of

Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, does have the

discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).1

 In order to determine whether exceptional circumstances

exist, the Court evaluates a plaintiff’s “‘likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability

of the [plaintiff] to articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved.’” Richard v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygant v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither factor

is determinative, and the Court must consider both factors before reaching a decision on a

Case 2:11-cv-01224-JAT Document 16 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

request for appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Defendant has moved to dismiss, or in the alternative for more definite statement,

arguing that “the complaint is unintelligible.” Doc. 11 at 2. This suggests Plaintiff is having

a difficult time articulating her claims pro se. However, in her motion to appoint counsel,

Plaintiff clearly and articulately states her position. Doc. 14. Additionally, the Court has

reviewed the complaint, and does not find that the one page complaint has merit. Doc. 1-1

at 2. Thus, the Court will not appoint counsel at this time.

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion for more definite statement, and deny the

motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint,

which follows Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s pleading standard. Plaintiff is encouraged

to follow one of the form complaints provided at forms 10-21 found in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 14) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for more definite statement

(part of Doc. 11) is granted, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (part of Doc. 11) is denied

without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by

September 12, 2011.

DATED this 12th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01224-JAT Document 16 Filed 08/12/11 Page 2 of 2