Hale v. Phoenix, City of 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
Lisa Hale,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Phoenix, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04548-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Lisa Hale has filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 12) and
Motion to Appoint Legal Counsel (Doc. 13). In her Motion for Extension of Time, she
asks that the Scheduling Conference set for February 23, 2026, be continued “to allow
more time to obtain legal counsel.” (Doc. 12 at 1). In her Motion to Appoint Legal
Counsel, Plaintiff says she is “unable to afford a private attorney due to my continued
health issues and unemployment.” (Doc. 13 at 1). She also says the case presents
complex legal issues that she does not understand. (Id.)
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See
Johnson v. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). “However, a court may
under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). In determining
whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success on the
merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate plaintiff’s claims in view of their
Case 2:25-cv-04548-DJH Document 14 Filed 01/26/26 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
complexity. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th
Cir. 1983)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “Neither of
these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560
F.3d at 970 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her
employment discrimination claims. And despite her averment otherwise, she has not
shown that she is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity
of the issues involved. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was required to
establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the
need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal
issues.”). In making her representations, Plaintiff is in no different position than many
other pro se litigants. Presently, this case does not present exceptional circumstances
requiring the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff.1
The Court will, however, allow a one-time continuance of the Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference to allow Plaintiff more time to obtain counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 13) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
(Doc. 12) is granted. The Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for February 23, 2026, is
vacated and reset for March 23, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. The remainder of the Court’s Order
(Doc. 11) is otherwise affirmed.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
1 If any claim remains to be tried after dispositive motions are decided, a second motion
to appoint counsel would be appropriately filed for the Court’s consideration. In the
meantime, the Court encourages Plaintiff to review the self-representation resources
available on this Court’s website: https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/proceeding-without-
attorney.
Case 2:25-cv-04548-DJH Document 14 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 2