Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01408/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01408-2/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

Sheldon Walker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1408-PHX-JWS (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, doc. 139.

Plaintiff, in essence, alleges that he is in need of counsel to assist him with his discovery

requests on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case.

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Johnson

v. U.S. Dep’t. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

however, provides that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable

to afford counsel.” Although the subject statute gives the trial court broad discretion

whether the appointment of counsel is warranted, the Ninth Circuit has limited the exercise

of that power to exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 

Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). In

determining whether to appoint counsel, the court must evaluate both the likelihood of

success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims claims,

pro se, in view of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Case 2:10-cv-01408-JWS Document 142 Filed 07/10/12 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 -

At this point, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor

has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the

complexity of the issues involved. Nor has Plaintiff shown that he has had difficulty in

articulating his case or position as shown by this most recent motion and the two years of

litigation since he commenced this matter. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint

counsel because no exceptional circumstances exist in this case. The Court may revisit this

issue, if appropriate, at a later date.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, doc. 139,

is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 9th of July, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01408-JWS Document 142 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 2