Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02105/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02105-0/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

Edward Eulalio Noriega,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pinal County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2105-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Attorney (Doc.#15).

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel because due to his mental health, he cannot

argue or do any legal research. (Id.)

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

v. 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). 

Plaintiff claims that he requires the assistance of an attorney due to his mental illness.

Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support his claim of any mental illness and 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. Moreover,

Case 2:06-cv-02105-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/21/07 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 -

Plaintiff’s numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion, indicate that Plaintiff

is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After reviewing the file, the

Court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the

appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Attorney (Doc.

#15) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 20th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02105-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2