Motion Picture Association of America v. CrystalTech Web Hosting Inc.

Filing 279

Motion Picture Association of America v. CrystalTech Web Hosting Inc.

Doc. 279

1 DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney 2 District of Arizona J. COLE HERNANDEZ 3 Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 018802 4 405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 5 [e-mail] Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. United States of America, Defendant. COMES NOW Defendant, the United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, and files its response to Plaintiff Ada Leyva's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (CR 62.) This Response is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points of Authorities and all matters of record. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On June 8, 2007, undersigned counsel received an Electronic Case Filing (ECF) notification that Plaintiffs had filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (CR 62.) The Motion consisted of a letter from Plaintiff Ana Maria Leyva to United States Magistrate Judge Hector Estrada dated May 17, 2007, requesting a meeting to discuss the evidence in this matter. Although pleadings submitted by pro se litigants are liberally construed, Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), pro se parties are required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs' letter fails to comply with LR Civ 7.1 and 7.2. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Frank Leyva and Ana Maria Leyva, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, CV 04-349-TUC-CKJ (HCE) DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Dockets.Justia.com

1

If in fact, Plaintiffs are requesting appointment of counsel, Plaintiffs' letter provides no

2 legal authority which allows the appointment of counsel in cases governed by the Federal Tort 3 Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§1346, 2671 et. seq. Plaintiffs were previously given 4 approximately 90 days to retain counsel in this matter, but were unable to find an attorney 5 willing to pursue their case. (CR 52, 53, 55.) The United States respectfully submits that the 6 fact that Plaintiffs have been unable to obtain representation may be a reflection of the merits 7 (or lack thereof) of Plaintiffs' case. Appointing counsel for Plaintiffs will not cure any 8 deficiencies in Plaintiffs' case. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ J. Cole Hernandez J. COLE HERNANDEZ Assistant U.S. Attorney Defendant, therefore, requests that Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel be denied. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2007.

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by th 18 other means this 8 day of June, 2007, to: r Leyva and Ana Maria Leyva 19 F7ankN. Valle Verde Dr. 2 07 a, 85621 20 Nlogntliess AZ Se P ai ff Pro 21 22 s/ Lisa Startup 23 24 25 26 27 28
2