Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02519/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

Kathy Fushi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bashas’, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2519-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 6).

For the following reason(s) the Court will deny the Motion.

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

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

Case 2:10-cv-02519-GMS Document 7 Filed 12/07/10 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 she is experiencing in attempting to

litigate her case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While Plaintiff has pointed

to financial difficulties that she is experiencing, such difficulties do not make her case

exceptional. To the extent that the Plaintiff further alleges that she has learning disabilities,

she provides no evidence to the Court either of the existence of such disabilities or that they

constitute, in this context, an exceptional circumstance. Accordingly, at the present time, this

case does not present “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.

6).

DATED this 7th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02519-GMS Document 7 Filed 12/07/10 Page 2 of 2