Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01850/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 

Lilly Washington, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Fannie Mae, named as FNMA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01850-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Someone to Represent Me at 

Settlement Conference (Doc. 36) and Motion to Ask for Help to Have One Attorney 

(Doc. 37). The Court will treat both motions as Motions to Appoint Counsel. 

 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 2:12-cv-01850-GMS Document 39 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 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 difficulties understanding that she is experiencing, such 

difficulties do not make her case exceptional. Accordingly, at the present time, this case 

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

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that both Motions to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 36, 37) are 

denied. 

 Dated this 8th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01850-GMS Document 39 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 2