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

Kim Michael Cook, Plaintiff, vs. Dr. Robertson, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-03-1100-PHX-ROS (VAM) ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (docket # 104) 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). 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). In support of his motion, Plaintiff contends that appointing counsel would benefit the court because counsel would be better able to present Plaintiff's claims. The convenience to the Court is not an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. 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.

Case 2:03-cv-01100-ROS-MHB

Document 106

Filed 02/15/2007

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

The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel because no exceptional circumstances exist in this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (docket # 104) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 14th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01100-ROS-MHB

-2Document 106

Filed 02/15/2007

Page 2 of 2