Parks v. Ryan

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Edward F Parks, No. CV-18-03397-PHX-DLR (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Musson, 13 Defendant.

16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc.

83).

As previously explained to the Plaintiff, there is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 19 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); 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 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 must be viewed together before reaching 2|| decision.” Jd. (quoting Wilborn vy. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

3 The Court does not find that exceptional circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. Plaintiff has articulated his position || throughout the litigation, and he is in a position no different from other incarcerated 6|| individuals. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and his 7\|| case has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies || (Doc. 76). The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 83).

9 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 83).

10 Dated this 4th day of September, 2020.

12 C | .

13 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 14 United States Magistrate Judge -2-