Williams v. United States ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 William E Williams, No. CV-22-08086-PCT-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 United States of America, 13 Defendant. 14 15 The Court now considers Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc 80) 16 Plaintiff asks that the Court appoint counsel to help him prosecute this case. Plaintiff 17 claims indigency. He explains that he is unfamiliar with the law and legal concepts. He 18 adds that he has attempted to engage private counsel without success. 19 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. Adir 20 Int’l, LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court 21 has authorized Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12) Under the relevant statute, 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may request that an attorney undertake pro bono 23 representation of an indigent plaintiff. As this Court has observed, the appointment of 24 counsel in a civil case “is only done in exceptional circumstances and courts cannot compel 25 a lawyer to take on representation of a civil litigant.” United States v. Melluzo, No. CV-09- 26 8197-PCT-MHM, 2010 WL 1779644, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 3, 2010) (cleaned up). 27 Plaintiff asserts that he has already contacted eight law firms requesting that they 28 take on his case. All declined. Plaintiff reports that “[t]hey seem to not want to represent || when a litigant has already proceeded through the federal court system as far as plaintiff □□ has.” (Doc. 80 at 1-2) 3 This Court will not undertake the responsibility of soliciting counsel for Plaintiff. 4|| First, Plaintiff’s stated reason—that lawyers do not want to engage in a lawsuit that is 5 || underway—applies equally to any lawyer contacted by the Court at this juncture. Even 6 || more importantly, the Court refuses to be put in a compromising position where a lawyer may feel intimidated or even coerced into taking on pro bono representation because of a 8 || district judge’s request. Plaintiff’s inability to secure counsel may indicate that there is □□ something unmarketable about his case. The Court expresses no opinion about this final 10 || point, yet it underscores the principle that a lawyer cannot be compelled to represent a client. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 13 || 80) is denied. 14 Dated this 15th day of August, 2023. 15 Michal T. Siburde Michael T. Liburdi 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-