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 

Anthony Michael Koch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brad Jacobs, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-08068-PCT-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Anthony Michael Koch, who is confined in the Mohave County Jail, has 

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court 

ordered Defendants Jacobs and Tribolet to answer Plaintiff’s excessive force claim set 

forth in Count One (Doc. 5 at 4). Service was executed on each Defendant by Waiver of 

Service of Summons filed July 2, 2018 (Docs. 9, 10). The time to file an answer has not 

run. 

 On May 29, 2018 and again on June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed “Request for 

Appointment of Counsel” and “Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting 

Claims and Documents” (Docs. 7, 8). In each motion, Plaintiff is requesting the 

appointment of counsel because Plaintiff (i) is indigent without resources, (ii) possesses 

limited legal knowledge and the case is complex, (iii) has limited access to the law 

library, and (iv) has been unsuccessful in obtaining counsel. 

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd 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 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In pro se and in forma 

pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 

(1989). District courts, however, do have the discretion to request that an attorney 

represent an indigent civil litigant upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. Of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination 

with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of the likelihood of 

success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these factors is 

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

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

 Plaintiff’s filings with the Court indicate that Plaintiff is capable of navigating this 

proceeding and presenting arguments to the Court. Having considered the likelihood of 

success on the merits and Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims, the Court does not 

find that exceptional circumstances are present that would require the appointment of 

counsel in this case. Plaintiff remains in a position no different than many pro se prisoner 

litigants. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s “Request for Appointment of Counsel” and 

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting Claims and Documents” (Docs. 7, 

8). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Request for Appointment of Counsel” and 

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Supporting Claims and Documents” (Docs. 7, 

8). 

 Dated this 6th day of July, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge