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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?