Basta 226043 v. Rode

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

9 Sameh Basta, No. CV-18-04363-PHX-SPL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Unknown Troman, 13 Defendant.

16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s fourth “Motions to Request Attorney” (Doc.

17 95). Plaintiff requests an attorney to assist him with his settlement conference scheduled for April 8, 2021. As the Court has previously explained (Docs. 9, 36, 70), 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 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. Jd. “Neither of these factors is dispositive and 2|| both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Jd. (quoting Wilborn y. □□ Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

4 The Court continues to find a lack of exceptional circumstances that would require || the appointment of counsel in this case. Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion (Doc.95) requesting the appointment 7\| of counsel.

8 Dated this 26th day of March, 2021.

Cay) dot Honorable Eileen S. Willett 2 United States Magistrate Judge _2-