Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08114/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08114-2/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

William W. Castle,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eurofresh, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-8114-PCT-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #8),

Motion to Extend Time to Complete Service (Doc. #9), and Motion for Status on Court

Screening (Doc. #10). Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed June 30, 2009; the Court’s Screening

Order was issued September 21, 2009 (Doc. #11). Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s

motion for status as moot and deny Plaintiff’s motion to extend time as premature.

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot

afford counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex. There is no constitutional

right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820,

824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when

exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)

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

to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success on the merits, and the

ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 12 Filed 09/30/09 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 -

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown

that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues

involved. Moreover, Plaintiff’s numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion,

indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After

reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present exceptional

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied.

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

#8) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Complete

Service (Doc. #9), as premature pending Plaintiff’s return of the service packets.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Status on Court Screening

(Doc. #10), as moot.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 12 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2