Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02153/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02153-1/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jorge Carlos Rodriguez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2153-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jorge Carlos Rodriguez, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth

Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order filed December 12, 2008, the Court

granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend.

On December 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.

#7). 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). The appointment

of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present.

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th

Cir. 1986). “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.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Court must review both

of these factors together in deciding whether or not to appoint counsel. Id. 

Case 2:08-cv-02153-MHM--JRI Document 11 Filed 01/21/09 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 -

The Court has reviewed and evaluated the Complaint and finds this action presents

no “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff

is in no different a position than other pro se litigations who have brought nearly identical

claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #7) will be

denied without prejudice. Plaintiff should note that this Order does not change the 30-day

deadline for filing an amended complaint that was set in the Court’s December 12th Order.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s December 19, 2008 Motion for Appointment of

Counsel (Doc. #7) is denied without prejudice.

DATED this 15th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02153-MHM--JRI Document 11 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 2