Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02770/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02770-0/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

Howard George Ireland,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-02770-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Doc.

13). 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 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 

Case 2:19-cv-02770-SRB-ESW Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 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

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 “Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

(Doc. 13).

Dated this 25th day of February, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02770-SRB-ESW Document 14 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2