Opinion
No. 1:08-cv-1484-DGC
10-31-2011
Arthur Gaspard, Plaintiff, v. D. Castillo, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed another motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. 48. Plaintiff has filed two previous motions for appointment of counsel (see Docs. 20, 28). As with the previous motions for appointment of counsel, the Court will deny Plaintiff's third motion for appointment of 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, has 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). "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)).
Having considered both factors, the Court does not find "exceptional circumstances" requiring the appointment of counsel. While Plaintiff ultimately may prevail at trial on his § 1983 claim, he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success. Nor has he shown that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 48) is denied.
David G. Campbell
United States District Judge