Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Eddie Hatch,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Terry L. Stewart, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

CV 04-0541-PHX-JWS (MS)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Appointment of Legale [sic] Counsel"
16

filed February 3, 2006 and "Motion for Extention [sic] of Time" filed February 3, 2006.
17

In his motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states that he is indigent and cannot
18

afford to hire counsel, that his claims are complex, and that he is unable to ask another
19

inmate for assistance. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time requests additional time
20

to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment until Plaintiff's motion for
21

counsel is decided.
22

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey
23

v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982); Randall v.
24

Wyrick, 642 F.2d 304, 306 n.6 (8th Cir. 1981). The appointment of counsel in a civil
25

rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Rand v.
26

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,
27

1093 (9th Cir. 1980)); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330-31 (9th Cir. 1986).
28

To decide whether these exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate
Case 2:04-cv-00541-JWS-LOA Document 58 Filed 02/07/2006 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

both "the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1330-31 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)). Moreover, neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See, Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Except for mere conclusions that his case is likely to succeed on its merits, Plaintiff fails to present evidence of exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is more than able to communicate his thoughts in writing to the Court. As a result, Plaintiff's motion for counsel will be denied. Plaintiff will, however, be given additional time to file his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's "Motion for Appointment of Legale [sic] Counsel" filed February 3, 2006 is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Extention [sic] of Time" filed February 3, 2006 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 6, 2006 and Defendants shall file their Reply no later than March 24, 2006.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00541-JWS-LOA

2 Document 58

Filed 02/07/2006

Page 2 of 2