Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02577/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02577-0/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 1

Upon screening of the First Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed 16 defendants

and Counts II-VIII and X. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Richard Perry,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-04-2577-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Appoint Trial Counsel

(Doc. # 33). 

Plaintiff, a former county jail inmate, filed a civil rights action against Defendant

alleging that severe overcrowding (Count I) and the lack of sufficient outdoor recreation at

the jail (Count IX) violated his constitutional rights, specifically the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments.1

 By Order dated October 13, 2006, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for

punitive damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff's claims for compensatory or nominal

damages premised on alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were not

dismissed and remain pending.

On October 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order to Appoint Trial Counsel

(Doc. # 30). Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel "[d]ue to the fact that he is a

Case 2:04-cv-02577-JAT Document 34 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

layman at law and unfamiliar with matters of jurisprudence relating to civil trials" such that

"it may be a burden to the court when conducting the anticipated trial." Plaintiff further

represents that he "will take the stand and cannot question himself. Such an inability will

render a degree of unfairness toward Plaintiff which the Defendant will not be subjected to."

Finally, Plaintiff represents that he "has attempted to obtain civil trial counsel but cannot

meet the required retainer fee due to financial inability" and that he "has been unable to find

an attorney who will take the case on a contingency on the outcome of the trial."

 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 allow litigants to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel in

“exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). In order to determine

whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court evaluates the petitioner’s “‘likelihood of

success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner 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 request for appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789

F.2d at 1331.

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated

both a likelihood of success on the merits and that any difficulty he is experiencing in

attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. More

particularly, the Court notes that the only remaining claims in this case are Plaintiff's claims

for compensatory or nominal damages for the alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments based on allegations of severe overcrowding and lack of sufficient outdoor

recreation at the jail. Only one defendant remains and the remaining claims against him are

not complex. Being "unfamiliar with matters of jurisprudence relating to civil trials" is not

Case 2:04-cv-02577-JAT Document 34 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

indicative of the complexities of the issues involved. 

Finally, Plaintiff's concerns regarding the inability to question himself on the witness

stand are unfounded. Questioning oneself on the witness stand is not a novel concept. At

the appropriate time, the Court will discuss with Plaintiff the options available for him to

present his testimony. Accordingly, at the present time, this case does not present

“exceptional circumstances” justifying the appointment of counsel.

However, Plaintiff may contact the following organization to determine whether it

has an attorney available to represent Plaintiff pro bono or at a reduced rate:

Volunteer Lawyers Program

305 South Second Avenue

P.O. Box 21538

Phoenix, Arizona 85036-1538

(602) 258-3434

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Appoint Trial Counsel (Doc.

# 33) is DENIED.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02577-JAT Document 34 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 3