Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01023/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01023-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Larry Charles Snow, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1023-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and Reset Case

Schedule (Doc. 19).

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

Case 2:11-cv-01023-GMS Document 20 Filed 12/02/11 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 -

section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

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. While Plaintiff has pointed

to [research] 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.

Petitioner previously requested an extension of time in which to file his objection to

the R & R and the Court granted the request (Doc. 18). The objection is due on December

16, 2011 and no further extensions will be granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion.

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01023-GMS Document 20 Filed 12/02/11 Page 2 of 2