Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert J. Krumlauf, Plaintiff, vs. Phoenix Police Department, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-04-720-PHX-ROS (LOA) ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (document # 32) There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th 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 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 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 (9th 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. Rather, Plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings in this case. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. Accordingly,

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

Document 42

Filed 04/17/2006

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (document # 32) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 14th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

-2Document 42

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 2 of 2