Ziegenfuss v. Arpaio

Full title: James N. Ziegenfuss, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Joseph Arpaio, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jun 26, 2006

No. CIV 05-1215-PHX-DGC (DKD) (D. Ariz. Jun. 26, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV 05-1215-PHX-DGC (DKD).

June 26, 2006

ORDER

DAVID DUNCAN, Magistrate Judge

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc.#18), filed June 12, 2006. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot afford counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex. ( Id.)

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9^th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9^th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9^th Cir. 1986)). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9^th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Moreover, Plaintiff's numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #18) is DENIED without prejudice.