Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01595/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01595-1/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

Alan T. Graziano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1595-PHX-NVW (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Clarify Case No:" (Doc. #11).

Despite the title of the motion, Plaintiff is actually asking the court to appoint an attorney to

represent him in this case.

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). The appointment

of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present.

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

Cir. 1986). “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.’” 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.

Case 2:05-cv-01595-NVW Document 12 Filed 10/25/05 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 -

Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances that are required

for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has presented nothing to show that his case is likely

to succeed on the merits. Nor has he shown that the legal issues are so complex that he is

unable to articulate his claims. Plaintiff argues only that he needs an attorney because he is

indigent and does not have the skills to execute his case. These circumstances are

insufficient to require the appointment of counsel and Plaintiff's request will therefore be

denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's "Motion to Clarify Case No:" (Doc. #11), which is actually a request

for appointment of counsel, is DENIED.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01595-NVW Document 12 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2