Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02495/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02495-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas White,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Sandra White, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2495-PHX-PGR

(9th Cir. No. 11-16048) 

 ORDER

 

The Court enter its judgment (Doc. 18) dismissing the petitioner’s habeas

petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on April 19, 2011. The petitioner, in a

combined document, filed his notice of appeal (Doc. 19) and his pending Motion

for Counsel (Doc. 20) on April 25, 2011.

The filing of a notice of appeal generally confers jurisdiction on the court of

appeals and divests the district court of jurisdiction, except, in relevant part, to the

extent that the district court retains jurisdiction to act in aid of the appeal. Since

the Court construes the plaintiff’s motion as seeking the appointment of counsel

to aid him in prosecuting his appeal, the Court concludes that it has the authority

to rule on the motion.

While there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action,

Case 2:10-cv-02495-PGR Document 23 Filed 06/21/11 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

- 2 -

the Court may request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1) if it is persuaded that there are “exceptional circumstances” to do so,

which requires that the Court take into account the plaintiff’s likelihood of success

on the merits of his action and his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir.1991). 

Having reviewed the plaintiff’s motion in light of the record of this action,

the Court finds that the motion should be denied. The Court cannot conclude that

the required exceptional circumstances exist because the plaintiff has not

demonstrated any sufficient likelihood of success on appeal or that his action is

now so complex that he cannot continue to prosecute it on his own. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 20) is denied.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02495-PGR Document 23 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 2