Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01518/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01518-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael R. Staples, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-1518 PHX VAM

)

Robert Need, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) and a

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). By Order filed 

June 16, 2006, the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was denied

and plaintiff was given ten days to pay the filing fee of $350.00. 

On June 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Request for Motion Stay of

Judgment. . ." indicating that he needed additional time to pay

the $350.00 filing fee. (Doc. 6). A review of the docket reveals

that plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Plaintiff will be

given one more opportunity to pay the filing fee or risk dismissal

of this action. There will be no further continuances of the date

for payment of the filing fee.

On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion requesting

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 4). 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,

Case 2:06-cv-01518-VAM Document 8 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

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-01518-VAM Document 8 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

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

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

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

On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Request for

Investigation of Records." (Doc. 3). This request will be denied

as it is premature.

On August 4, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion regarding

"Federal Judge Hostage and Harassment on Case. . ." (Doc. 7). 

This Motion is unintelligible and will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying as premature plaintiff's

"Request for Investigation of Records. (Doc. 3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice plaintiff's

Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 4).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting plaintiff's Motion for Stay of

Judgment. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee

no later than November 1, 2006. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to enter dismissal of this action without further notice

Case 2:06-cv-01518-VAM Document 8 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

if plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee of $350.00.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion regarding

"Federal Judge Hostage and Harassment on Case. . ." (Doc. 7).

DATED this 18th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01518-VAM Document 8 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 4