Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01874/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01874-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Hearman Newton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-1874-PHX-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Hearman Newton, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Arizona 

Department of Corrections, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against the City of Phoenix and Officer Michael Myers. (Doc. 1.) The remaining 

Defendant, Officer Myers, moves to dismiss, and Plaintiff opposes.1

 (Docs. 8, 11.) 

 The Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. In addition, 

the Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 19) denying Plaintiff’s motion 

seeking the appointment of counsel. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff’s claim arises out of his arrest on February 19, 2013. On screening under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated a claim and directed 

 

1

 The Court provided notice to Plaintiff regarding the requirements of a response. (Doc. 9.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01874-SPL-MEA Document 31 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Myers to answer the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim in Count One and 

dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants. (Doc. 5.) 

 Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that, based on Plaintiff’s guilty plea to 

aggravated assault for events occurring on February 19, 2013, Plaintiff’s claim is barred 

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed a response 

claiming that excessive force was used after Plaintiff was subdued. (Doc. 11.) He also 

filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion to Amend his Complaint, which was opposed 

by Defendant. (Docs. 10, 12, 14.) Magistrate Judge Aspey issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) regarding the Motion to Amend the Complaint, recommending 

denial of the Motion to Amend. (Doc. 18.) 

 On June 13, 2014, the district court rejected the R&R. (Doc. 27.) The Court 

noted that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges that he was shot with a Taser 

while lying on the ground in handcuffs, slammed to the ground twice while unconscious, 

and dragged twenty feet by the handcuffs while unconscious, and that Defendant cut him 

with a “taser dart.” (Id. at 4; ref. Doc. 10.) The Court reasoned that it was unlikely that 

the aggravated assault conviction was based on such conduct and observed that, although 

Plaintiff plead guilty to aggravated assault on Defendant, the record does not reveal the 

factual basis for Plaintiff’s guilty plea. (Doc. 27 at 4.) The Court gave Plaintiff until July 

11, 2014 to file an amended complaint. (Id.) 

 In view of the procedural history of the case and the failure of Defendant’s motion 

to demonstrate the factual basis for the plea to aggravated assault, the Court will deny 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice. 

II. Appointment of Counsel 

On May 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint 

Counsel. (Doc. 19; ref. Doc. 13.) Plaintiff filed a “Motion to ‘Reconsider’ for 

Appointment of Counsel,” which the Magistrate Judge deemed as an appeal to its Order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel. (Docs. 19, 21, 28.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01874-SPL-MEA Document 31 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 The Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s decision denying Plaintiff’s request 

for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right for an indigent to have 

appointed counsel in a civil case. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Although 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1) confers on a court the discretion to “request” counsel to 

represent an indigent civil litigant, this circuit has limited the exercise of that power to 

“exceptional circumstances,” based upon such factors as the likelihood of success on the 

merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims in light of their complexity. 

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff offers nothing to 

show a likelihood of success, nor does he show any particular complexity of issues in this 

case. He merely asserts that he has limited knowledge of the law and limited access to a 

law library and that the case is likely to involve conflicting testimony. (Doc. 21.) The 

circumstances Plaintiff describes do not differ from those of other inmates who represent 

themselves and do not warrant appointment of counsel at this time. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) and Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision (Doc. 

21); 

 (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is denied without prejudice; and 

 (3) The Magistrate Judge’s Decision (Doc. 19) denying appointment of counsel 

is affirmed. 

 Dated this 3rd day of July, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01874-SPL-MEA Document 31 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 3