Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00516/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00516-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Leon Wilson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Navajo County Jail; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-516-PCT-JAT (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before the court is a motion to appoint counsel filed by the plaintiff on

September 2, 2005. [doc. # 41] The defendants did not file a response

The plaintiff in this case, Wilson, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming he was denied adequate medical care while at the Navajo County Jail. Wilson is

currently incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections facility in Buckeye, Arizona.

 The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds for all pretrial matters

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona. 

Discussion

On September 2, 2005, Wilson filed the instant motion for appointment of counsel.

He argues counsel is necessary because he has no access to legal research material and

Case 3:04-cv-00516-JAT-GEE Document 47 Filed 11/18/05 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 -

consequently he is denied meaningful access to the courts. He has attempted to obtain

counsel, but he has been unsuccessful. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel for a section 1983 action. Rand v. Rowland,

113 F.3d 1520, 1535 (9th Cir.1997). The court may appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1) but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir.1991). “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.” Id. “Neither of these factors

is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

In the instant motion, Wilson does not explain why he is likely to succeed on the

merits. In fact, the record contains the report of an expert witness, Robert D. Jones, M.D.,

who concludes the defendant, Debra Jones, was not deliberately indifferent to Wilson’s

medical needs. Wilson’s legal briefs indicate he has the ability to adequately articulate his

claims. The legal issues involved are not particularly complex. “Exceptional circumstances”

are not present here. See, e.g., Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Wilson argues that without legal assistance or access to a law library he is unable to

effectively prosecute his action. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not guarantee prisoners

this right. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Prisoners have a right of access to the

courts, but this only includes the right to raise a claim before the court. Id. Wilson has done

this by presenting his complaint. An inmate has no constitutional right to litigate effectively

once his claims have been presented. Id. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel filed by the plaintiff on

September 2, 2005, is DENIED. [doc. # 41] 

DATED this 18th day of November, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-00516-JAT-GEE Document 47 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2