United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2019

Hill v. Phoenix Police Department

Hill v. Phoenix Police Department
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided September 25, 2019
Hill v. Phoenix Police Department

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10 Michael Lynn Hill, No. CV-18-01824-PHX-SRB (ESW) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Moller, et al., 14 Defendants.

17 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Notice of Plaintiff Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 19).

19 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. Ivey v. Bd. of 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 25 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 2|| must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Jd. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (th Cir. 1986)).

4 Having considered both elements, the Court does not find that exceptional || circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case.

6|| Plaintiff is in no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. His filings in this || case demonstrate his ability to clearly articulate his position to the Court. His case is not || complex. Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's “Notice of Plaintiff Motion Requesting || Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 19).

11 Dated this 25th day of September, 2019.

13 C | Honorable Eileen S. Willett 15 United States Magistrate Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.