Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03948/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03948-0/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

Earlie Calvin Jenkins, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-3948 PHX ROS (VAM)

)

Maricopa County Sheriff's ) O R D E R

Office, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

On July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint." (Doc. 17). However, he did not submit a

proposed amended complaint as required by the Local Rules and his

Motion will be denied. Civil Local Rule 15.1 (LRCiv 15.1)

provides, in part, as follows:

(a) Motions for Leave to Amend

 (1) Form; Attachments. A party who moves for

leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the

proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion,

which shall indicate in what respect it differs from the

pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking

through the text to be deleted and underlining the text

to be added.

 (2) Lodging of Original Proposed Amendments. A

party who moves for leave to amend a pleading, or who

otherwise seeks to amend a pleading by leave of court

including by stipulation and order, must lodge with the

Clerk of Court an original of the proposed amended

pleading. The original must not be physically attached

or made an exhibit to a motion to amend, a stipulation

to amend, or any other pleading and must contain the

original signature of the attorney or unrepresented

party proposing the amendment. The amended pleading is

Case 2:05-cv-03948-ROS-HCE Document 18 Filed 08/04/06 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

not to incorporate by reference any part of the

preceding pleading, including exhibits.

On July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of

Counsel. 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, 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

Case 2:05-cv-03948-ROS-HCE Document 18 Filed 08/04/06 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

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

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. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that the constitutional right of

access to the courts requires that the state provide assistance

only through the pleading stage. Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894,

898 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033, 116 S. Ct. 2580 

(1996). This case is beyond the pleading stage and at the present

time does not present "exceptional circumstances" requiring the

appointment of counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying without prejudice plaintiff's

Case 2:05-cv-03948-ROS-HCE Document 18 Filed 08/04/06 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

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice plaintiff's

Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 16).

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03948-ROS-HCE Document 18 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4