Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02357/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02357-2/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 

Sherman Terrell Pruitt, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 39). Plaintiff is 

incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis and has filed a civil rights First 

Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests the appointment of 

counsel for the following reasons: (1) the issues in his case are complex; (2) 

imprisonment limits his ability to litigate; (3) Plaintiff has limited knowledge of the law; 

and (4) Plaintiff’s attempts to secure counsel on his own have been unsuccessful. 

 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court 

may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

Case 2:13-cv-02357-DJH-ESW Document 48 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d 

at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). See also Terrell v. 

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citing 

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

 Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 

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. Plaintiff’s filings with the Court, as well as the instant motion, indicate 

that Plaintiff is capable of navigating his proceedings and presenting arguments to the 

Court. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was required to establish successfully 

the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of 

further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). Plaintiff is in no 

different position that many pro se prisoner litigants. Having failed to show that 

exceptional circumstances are present, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will 

be denied. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 39) is denied. 

 Dated this 24th day of November, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02357-DJH-ESW Document 48 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2