Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08184-0/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 

Eulandas J. Flowers, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sandra Lawrence, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08184-PCT-JAT (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel 

(Doc. 15) and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plantiff’s [sic] Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 16) filed January 20, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that his case 

in complex, his ability to conduct discovery and research is limited by his incarceration 

and segregation, credibility will be an issue regarding the witnesses, Plaintiff is indigent, 

and Plaintiff is not trained in the law. Plaintiff additionally has filed a Declaration in 

Support of Plantiff’s [sic] Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 17). 

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

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court 

may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his 

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 18 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved’” Palmer, 560 F.3d 

at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Terrell v. 

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F3.d at 970 (citing 

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

 Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits at this early stage of 

the case, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because 

of the complexity of the issues involved. Plaintiff’s filings with the Court, as well as the 

instant motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of navigating his proceedings and 

presenting arguments to the Court. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was 

required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a 

demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would 

involve complex legal issues.”). Plaintiff is in no different position that many pro se

prisoner litigants. Having failed to show that exceptional circumstances are present, 

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 

15) is denied. 

 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-08184-JAT Document 18 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2