Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02225/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02225-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

Ann Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Salvation Army, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-02225-PHX-DGC

 CV-15-01444-PHX SPL 

ORDER 

 Pro se Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to allow her “to retain” an 

attorney to assist with the discovery in this case. Doc. 66. Plaintiff does not need the 

Court’s permission to retain an attorney. If she does retain an attorney to represent her in 

this case, the attorney must make a formal appearance and must comply with the 

litigation schedule established in the Court’s orders. 

 If Plaintiff is asking the Court to appoint counsel at the Court’s expense, that 

request will be denied. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil 

case. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.1982). 

Nevertheless, a district court may appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (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 or her claim pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 

Cir.1983)); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1988). 

Case 2:14-cv-02225-DGC Document 68 Filed 10/23/15 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 

 Having considered both elements, it does not appear that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does 

not attempt to show exceptional circumstances, and although she states that discovery is 

“getting complicated,” Plaintiff is in no different position than many pro se litigants. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for limited scope representation by 

attorney (Doc. 66) is denied. 

 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02225-DGC Document 68 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 2