Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03438/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03438-2/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

Christopher David Ochoa,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Health Care Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-03438-PHX-ROS (ESW)

ORDER 

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

Due to Unavoidable Extraordinary Circumstances.” (Doc. 40). Plaintiff requests the 

appointment of counsel because he (i) was assaulted by inmates in the prison, (ii) lost his 

legal documents while hospitalized, (iii) has no legal training, (iv) has no resources to hire 

counsel, (v) and requires third party assistance to file documents.

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

Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982)). In pro se and in 

forma pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 

(1989). District courts, however, do have the discretion to request that an attorney 

represent an indigent civil litigant upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. Of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 

Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination with 

Case 2:18-cv-03438-ROS-ESW Document 41 Filed 06/02/20 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

respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on 

the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both 

must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

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

Having considered both elements, the Court does not find that exceptional 

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

Plaintiff is in no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. His filings in this 

case demonstrate his ability to clearly articulate his position to the Court. His case is not 

complex.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Request for the Appointment of Counsel 

Due to Unavoidable Extraordinary Circumstances.” (Doc. 40).

Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:18-cv-03438-ROS-ESW Document 41 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2