Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02837/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02837-1/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

David Joseph Lopez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Tom Sheahan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2837-PCT-FJM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (docket

# 24) 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). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights

case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. 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 should consider the likelihood of success

on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity.

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). 

In support of his motion, Plaintiff claims that he lacks legal knowledge, has

inadequate access to legal materials and needs assistance in discovery. 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. The Court

will deny Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel because no exceptional circumstances exist in

Case 3:06-cv-02837-FJM-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 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 -

this case. The Court may revisit this issue if it deems the appointment of counsel necessary to

assist Plaintiff during trial. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(docket # 24) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 3rd day of July, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-02837-FJM-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 2