Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08005/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Joe Newman,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Show Low Police Department, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 13-8005-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). The Court will grant that motion. 

Also pending is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. There is no

constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. 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; Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.

1980). In order to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court evaluates

the plaintiff’s “‘likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to

articulate his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’”

Richard v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,

954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither factor is determinative, and

the Court must consider both factors before reaching a decision on a request for appointment

of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Case 3:13-cv-08005-JAT Document 6 Filed 01/24/13 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 -

At this stage of the litigation, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff will

succeed on the merits. The Court has read the complaint and finds that Plaintiff is able to

articulate his claims pro se, and that the issues presented are not particularly complex.

Accordingly, the Court will deny appointment of counsel at this time.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor.

Service by waiver or service of the summons and complaint shall be at government expense

on the defendants by the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative. The court directs the

following:

(1) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the

Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

the Defendant(s).

(2) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of

Court within 30 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal

will not provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(3) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons

or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant(s) within 120

days of the filing of the Complaint, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant

not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

(4) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and

Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3)

is denied.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2013.

Case 3:13-cv-08005-JAT Document 6 Filed 01/24/13 Page 2 of 2