Matthews v. Summers

Filing 23

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 17 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 22 ). The Clerk of the Court is ordered to strike Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 20 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 7/29/2014.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Moses Isaiah Matthews,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Heather Summers,

13
14

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-14-0062-PHX-JAT (DKD)

ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 17) and

16

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 22).

17

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot afford

18

counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex.

19

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson

20

v. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights

21

case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

22

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

23

In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success

24

on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity.

25

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).

26

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. 11). Plaintiff has failed to

27

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and has not shown that he is experiencing

28

difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Moreover,

1

Plaintiff’s numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending motion, indicate that Plaintiff

2

is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. After reviewing the file, the

3

Court determines that this case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the

4

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

5

Defendant’s Motion to Strike seeks to strike Plaintiff’s Request for Production of

6

Documents (Doc. 20). Plaintiff is advised that discovery requests need not be filed with the

7

Court but rather submitted to opposing counsel with a Notice of Service filed with the Court.

8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(d)(1) provides:

9
10
11

Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served — together with a
certificate of service — must be filed within a reasonable time after service. But
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and
responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court
orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or tangible
things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for admission.

12

Also see Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules),
13

LRCiv 5.2:
14
15

A “Notice of Service” of the disclosures and discovery requests and responses
listed in Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed within
a reasonable time after service of such papers.

16

Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion.
17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
18

(Doc. 17).
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
20

Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 22). The Clerk of the Court is ordered to strike
21

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 20).
22

DATED this 29th day of July, 2014.

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-