Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Betty Aldama
Plaintiff
Arizona House of Representatives
Defendant
Jim Drake
Defendant
Elizabeth Hatch
Defendant
Kathy Pierce
Defendant
Bill Youngkratz
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Betty Aldama, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Elizabeth Hatch; Kathy Pierce; Jim Drake;

Bill Youngkratz; and the Arizona House of

Representatives, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-05-2016-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. #3)

Having reviewed the motion, the Court issues the following order.

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 appointment of

counsel in a civil case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. 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 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.”’ Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court must

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

 The Court may appoint counsel for indigent litigants in civil cases only when

exceptional circumstances are present. Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1093. In the instant case,

Plaintiff alleges Defendants discriminated against her when terminating her employment in

Case 2:05-cv-02016-MHM Document 6 Filed 10/24/05 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 -

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This case does not present any unique or

complicated issues. Instead, it will require the finder of fact to evaluate the credibility of

witnesses, whether the alleged discrimination place, and/or whether Defendants had a

legitimate nondiscriminatory basis when terminating Plaintiff’s employment. The Court has

reviewed and evaluated Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that this action does not present

“exceptional circumstances” justifying the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is

denied. (Dkt. # 3).

DATED this 20th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02016-MHM Document 6 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2