Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00582/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00582-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Richard Blaisdell,

Plaintiff,

v.

Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-08-582-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Blaisdell has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #59).

Mr. Blaisdell would like the Court to appoint an attorney to represent him at trial. He claims

that he cannot afford an attorney; that his imprisonment has hampered his ability to litigate

this case; that the issues in the case are complex and a lawyer would help him to apply the

law properly at trial; that he is unfamiliar with the Rules of Evidence; and that a lawyer

would help him in the presentation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses.

While, undoubtedly, the appointment of counsel would aid Mr. Blaisdell in presenting

his case at trial, the standard for appointment of counsel is not whether it would be helpful.

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

Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). The appointment of counsel in a

civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980).

“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

Case 2:08-cv-00582-JAT Document 61 Filed 11/02/09 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 -

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting 

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court must review both of these

factors together in deciding whether or not to appoint counsel. Id. 

This case does not present “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of

counsel. The Court has not, as Mr. Blaisdell asserts, indicated that he should win this case.

The Court merely found for him on some issues at the summary judgment stage. Moreover,

Mr. Blaisdell has shown his ability to successfully articulate his claims by surviving

summary judgment, and his claims do not involve complex legal issues. The Court also

notes this request comes only three weeks before his trial date, which would not give

appointed counsel adequate time to prepare for trial. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.

#59). 

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00582-JAT Document 61 Filed 11/02/09 Page 2 of 2