Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 43 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Reginald Haywood, ) No. CV-05-2179-PHX-DGC ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) 11 vs. ) ) 12 ) Jeffrey A. Bedatsky, et al., ) 13 ) Defendants. ) 14 ) ) 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. 18 #26. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se civil complaint against defendants 19 on July 22, 2005. Doc. #1. Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination from the United States 20 Postal Service in violation of various federal statutes. Id. at 1-2. 21 In his motion, Plaintiff states that due to his disability and lack of financial resources, 22 he should be appointed counsel to conduct discovery, take depositions, present oral argument 23 on motions for sanctions, and negotiate any potential settlement. Doc. #26 at 1. 24 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. 25 of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266" date_filed="1982-03-29" court="2d Cir." case_name="Richard Ivey v. Board of Regents of The University of Alaska">673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court, however, has 26 discretion to appoint counsel in "exceptional circumstances." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); 27 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328" date_filed="1986-07-03" court="9th Cir." case_name="Frederick C. Wilborn v. Antonio Escalderon and Ruth Rushen">789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 28 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation  Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 43 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2 1 of both 'the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate 2 his or her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'" Wilborn, 789 3 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952" date_filed="1983-10-19" court="9th Cir." case_name="Vernon C. Weygandt v. Donald Look, Superintendent, and the Attorney General for the State of Washington">718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 4 The main issue to be tried in this case is whether Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated 5 from the United States Postal Service. Because Plaintiff has provided no substantive support 6 for his allegations, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on this issue 7 at trial. Nor can the Court conclude that Plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims. The 8 Court accordingly finds that this case does not present "exceptional circumstances" requiring 9 the appointment of counsel. 10 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #26) is 11 denied. 12 DATED this 7th day of March, 2006. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-