Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02175/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02175-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

Brian Hopson,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U. S. Department of Justice, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2175-PHX-LOA

ORDER

 This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (docket

#4). Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he cannot afford counsel. there

is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson 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 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, Plaintiff’s previous filings with the Court as well as the pending

motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court.

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 9 Filed 09/29/06 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 -

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 the Appointment of

Counsel (docket #4) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02175-LOA Document 9 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2