Catalina v. Turner et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ana Catalina,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jenna Turner, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-06403-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc.
11).
… [T]here is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil
case. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings
in forma pauperis, the court “may request an attorney to represent any person
unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when “exceptional
circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.
1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of
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. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed
together before reaching a decision.” Id. (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Meyer v. Lyft Express Drive, No. CV-25-00247-PHX-DWL, 2025 WL 896517, at *1 (D.
Ariz. Mar. 24, 2025).
Here, Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis. For that reason alone, she is
ineligible for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Alternatively, appointment of counsel is denied because there are no exceptional
Case 2:26-cv-06403-JAT Document 13 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
circumstances in this case. First, from the Court’s preliminary reading of the complaint,
the Court does not find a likelihood of success on the merits. It appears that all of the
actions of Defendants about which Plaintiff now complains have already been litigated in
state court. Those claims cannot be relitigated in federal court. See generally Cooper v.
Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777–79 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing that matters litigated in state
court, or inextricably intertwined with matters litigated in state court, cannot be relitigated
in federal court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
Second, both Plaintiff’s complaint and her motion for appointment of counsel
articulate Plaintiff’s claims and requests clearly considering the complexity of the issues
involved. Accordingly, the appointment of counsel is not warranted.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 11) is denied,
and the motion to amend the proposed form of order (Doc. 12) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must serve Defendants within the time
limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Dated this 16th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-06403-JAT Document 13 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2