Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00146/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00146-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Douglas John Zolnierz, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-146-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and/or Guardian

Ad Litem (Doc. 38). 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.

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

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 43 Filed 11/18/11 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

27

28

- 2 -

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 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.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and/or

Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. 38).

DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 43 Filed 11/18/11 Page 2 of 2