Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00171/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00171-0/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

Leonard Wagenschutz, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-171 PHX EHC (VAM)

)

Joseph Arpaio, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

On December 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 45). There is no constitutional

right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir.

1982); Randall v. Wyrick, 642 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1981). Moreover,

the only statutory authority creating a basis for appointment is

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), which confers on the court the discretion

to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant. 

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court cannot

compel a lawyer to represent an indigent plaintiff. Mallard v.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

296 (1989). An appointment of counsel may be requested under 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) only in "exceptional circumstances." Aldabe,

616 at 1089; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986).

This rule is derived from Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598,

600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845, 84 S.Ct. 97, 11

Case 2:05-cv-00171-EHC-MHB Document 46 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 3
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

L.Ed.2d 72 (1963) which held that "the privilege of pleading in

forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be

allowed only in exceptional circumstances." See Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1328. Weller was extended, without apparent comment, to

"appointment of counsel" in United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792,

794 (9th Cir. 1965). Madden was then cited for the rule in

Alexander v. Ramsey, 539 F.2d 25, 26 (9th Cir. 1976); United

States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1978), on appeal

after remand, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455

U.S. 958, 102 S.Ct. 1470, 71 L.Ed.2d 677 (1983); Aldabe, 616 at

1093; and Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984).

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 claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt v. Look, 718

F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), quoted in Richards v. Harper, 864

F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1988). Neither of these factors is dispositive

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a

request for counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

1331.

Here, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success

on the merits. In addition, plaintiff has failed to show that any

difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate this case

is derived from the complexity of the issues involved. While most

actions, such as the instant case, require development of

supporting facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will

seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts to support

Case 2:05-cv-00171-EHC-MHB Document 46 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

the case, this does not equate with showing the complexity of the

relevant issues. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that the constitutional right of

access to the courts requires that the state provide assistance

only through the pleading stage. Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894,

898 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033, 116 S. Ct. 2580 

(1996). This case is beyond the pleading stage and at the present

time does not present "exceptional circumstances" requiring the

appointment of counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for

appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. (Doc. 45).

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00171-EHC-MHB Document 46 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 3