Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02023/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joao Cornelio, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alfa Wasserman Diagnostic Technologies

LLC, also named as Alfa Wasserman,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2023-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel (Doc.

19). The Court will deny the motion for the following reasons.

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). The Court, however, does

have the discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); 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.’”

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331(quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see

Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). “Neither of these factors is dispositive

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel” under

section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Case 2:10-cv-02023-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/22/10 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 -

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to

litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While Plaintiff has pointed

to financial difficulties that he is experiencing, such difficulties do not make his case

exceptional. Accordingly, at the present time, this case does not present “exceptional

circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel

(Doc. 19).

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02023-GMS Document 23 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 2