Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00325/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00325-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Mark E. Dixon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pinal County, a political subdivision;

James Walsh, Pinal County Attorney;

and Paul Babeu, Pinal County Sheriff, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-325-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff claims to be the lawful owner of an Australian sheppard named Shiloh. He

alleges that Pinal County officials wrongfully seized Shiloh and turned the dog over to his

ex-wife. He brought suit against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 60. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him

in this action. Doc. 66. 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

does have the discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1); see Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “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)). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both

must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel[.]” Id.

Case 2:10-cv-00325-DGC Document 79 Filed 01/07/11 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 -

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

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. This case does not present

the “exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 66) is

denied.

DATED this 7th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00325-DGC Document 79 Filed 01/07/11 Page 2 of 2