Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00231/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00231-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT Still University
Defendant
Jana James
Plaintiff

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

Jana James,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AT Still University,

Defendant.

No. CV-23-00231-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jana James is self-represented. She has sued Defendant AT Still 

University for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to 

accommodate Ms. James’ disability during her time as a student. (Doc. 9.) Ms. James has 

filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint her counsel in advance of the October 12, 

2023, case management conference. (Doc. 22.) Ms. James’ motion will be denied.

Generally, there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. 

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court has 

discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to appoint counsel to represent civil 

litigants who cannot afford counsel. However, appointment of counsel is appropriate only 

when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances warranting appointment 

of counsel. Ms. James explains in her motion that she has reached out to several attorneys 

Case 2:23-cv-00231-DLR Document 24 Filed 08/29/23 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

on the Arizona State Bar website, but thus far has been unable to find counsel at a rate 

she can afford. Ms. James says she is still searching for an attorney, but in the meantime, 

requests appointed counsel because she does not feel prepared to meet with opposing 

counsel to craft a proposed scheduling order given her unfamiliarity with the Court’s 

procedures.

Ms. James’ circumstances are not extraordinary. Many, if not most, selfrepresented litigants are unfamiliar with federal procedure and at times find federal civil 

litigation overwhelming. But the Court has resources available to self-represented 

litigants to help them better understand the process. The Court issued a notice to Ms. 

James on February 6, 2023, detailing these resources. (Doc. 6.) Many are available online 

at the Court’s public website, www.azd.uscourts.gov. In the upper right corner of the 

homepage, Ms. James will find a link titled “For those Proceeding Without an Attorney.” 

If she follows it, she will find links to, among other resources, the Court’s “Handbook for 

Self-Represented Litigants,” and the Advice-Only Clinic, where she can schedule an 

appointment to speak with a volunteer attorney. The Court encourages Ms. James to avail 

herself of these resources.

IT IS ORDERED that Ms. James’ motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 22) is 

DENIED.

Dated this 29th day of August, 2023.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-00231-DLR Document 24 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 2