Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02404/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02404-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

Jose Manuel Castillo-Arroyo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alec Niziolek, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2404-PHX-RCB (MEA)

ORDER

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff Jose Manuel Castillo-Arroyo, who is confined in the

Corrections Corporation of America’s Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro

se civil rights Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and an Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. In a December 12, 2011 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and

dismissed the Complaint without leave to amend because the defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint

could not be corrected. On December 12, 2011, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment.

On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. He also filed a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7). It is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking counsel in this

closed case or on appeal. 

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking the appointment of counsel in this case, the Court

will deny his request. There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil

case. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.

Case 2:11-cv-02404-RCB--MEA Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 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 -

1982). In proceedings in forma pauperis, the court may request an attorney to represent any

person unable to afford one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of

the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Given the fact that

the Court has already dismissed this case, the appointment of counsel is not appropriate.

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking the appointment of counsel on appeal, Plaintiff

should file that request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not this Court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) is denied.

(2) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02404-RCB--MEA Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 2 of 2