Riess v. Cordero et al

Filing 155

ORDER denying 145 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 149 Plaintiff's Request for Further Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order. Plaintiff shall file and serve his portions of the Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 9/9/11. (SJF)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

RICHARD STEVEN REISS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
KARL STANSEL, et al.

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 09-1760-PHX-RCB
O R D E R

16
17

Plaintiff pro se, Richard Reiss, currently has two motions

18

pending before the court: (1) a “Renewed Motion for Appointment of

19

Counsel” (Doc. 145); and (2) a “Request for Further Extension of

20

Time to Submit Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order [“JFPO”] (Doc.

21

149).

22

but not the latter.

Defendants Karl Stansel and Niles Behrens oppose the former,

23

In that first motion, plaintiff is seeking appointment of

24

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to represent him in the

25

trial of this matter.

26

discretion, to “request an attorney to represent any person unable

27

to afford counsel.”

28

Alternatively, if the court denies that relief, plaintiff

That statute authorizes a court, in its

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (West 2006).

1

“requests” appointment of counsel “at least[] in any advisory

2

capacity to assist and advise him[]” during the trial.

3

145) at 2.

4

civil trials and his limited access to legal research resources.

5

Mot. (Doc.

Plaintiff bases this motion on his unfamiliarity with

As defendants accurately point out, nothing has changed since

6

April 16, 2010, when the Honorable Edward C. Voss, United States

7

Magistrate Judge, denied plaintiff’s original motion for

8

appointment of counsel.

9

Judge held that plaintiff did not satisfy the exceptional

In denying that motion, the Magistrate

10

circumstances of section 1915(e)(1) because he could not show “a

11

likelihood of success on the merits[;]” nor could he show “an

12

inability to articulate his claims in light of the complexities of

13

the issues.”

14

the contrary, the Magistrate Judge stated that “[p]laintiff’s

15

filings establish that he is fully capable of presenting his

16

claims.”

17

Ord. (Doc. 26) at 2:24-25; and 2:21-22.

In fact, to

Id. at 2:22-23.

That rationale is equally if not more compelling now.

Since

18

that order denying counsel, as defendants point out, “[p]laintiff

19

has litigated this matter on his own through the summary judgment

20

stage, even surviving summary judgment on several claims.”

21

(Doc. 151) at 3:10-11.

22

suggestion that appointment of counsel is necessary because of a

23

purportedly insufficient law library at the Eloy Detention Center.

24

In short, now as then, plaintiff has not made the requisite showing

25

of exceptional circumstances so as to warrant appointment of trial

26

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

27

does the court find that plaintiff is entitled to the appointment

28

of “advisory” counsel during the trial of this matter.

Resp.

That fact further undermines plaintiff’s

-2-

Nor, on this record,

Thus, in

1

all respects, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for appointment

2

of counsel.

3

As to plaintiff’s request for further extension of time to

4

submit a JFPO, defendants do not oppose that request, “if the Court

5

is inclined to grant one[]” which it is.

6

1:24-26.

7

granting this motion based upon plaintiff’s allegations that

8

defendants have been uncooperative in preparing the proposed JFPO.

9

If anything, it appears on this record that it is plaintiff Riess

See Resp. (Doc. 153) at

In so doing, the court stresses, however, that it is not

10

who may have been less than totally cooperative.

11

the interest of justice, the court will grant plaintiff an

12

extension of time.

13

from the date of entry of this order in which to file his portions

14

of the JFPO.

In any event, in

Plaintiff Reiss shall have fourteen (14) days

15

For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby ORDERS that:

16

(1) “Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

17

(Doc. 145) is DENIED in all respects; and

18

(2) Plaintiff’s “Request for Further Extension of Time to

19

Submit Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order” (Doc. 149) is GRANTED;

20

and

21

(3) Plaintiff shall file and serve his portions of the

22

Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order no later than fourteen (14)

23

days from the date of entry of this Order.

24

DATED this 9th day of September, 2011.

25
26
27
28
-3-

1

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

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
-4-