Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02610/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02610-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason Marlin Crook,

Plaintiff, v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02610-PHX-JAT (ESW)

ORDER 

On April 11, 2016, Plaintiff Jason Marlin Crook, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered all Defendants to answer (Doc. 28 at 5).

Pending before the Court are several motions which the Court will rule upon as set 

forth below.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 29)

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him counsel because (i) he is unable to 

afford an attorney; (ii) imprisonment limits his ability to research and investigate issues 

in his case; (iii) conflicting testimony of the witnesses is better handled by counsel; (iv) 

his efforts to obtain counsel have been unsuccessful; and (v) he suffers from mental 

health conditions that inhibit his ability to perform needed tasks. Plaintiff asserts that the 

law and justice support the appointment of counsel in his case.

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

Case 2:15-cv-02610-JAT-ESW Document 34 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court 

may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d 

at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Terrell v. 

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F3.d at 970 (citing 

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

Plaintiff has not shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case 

because of the complexity of the issues involved. Plaintiff’s filings with the Court 

indicate that Petitioner understands the issues and is capable of presenting his arguments 

to the Court. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was required to establish 

successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for 

development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). 

In addition, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff is in 

no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. Because Plaintiff has not shown 

that exceptional circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel 

in this case, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 29) will be denied.

B. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Add Supplemental Pleading” (Doc. 30); 

“Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Pleading

previously filed on August 15, 2016” (Doc. 32); and “Motion for Leave to 

Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint to Add New Defendants and Counts” (Doc. 

33) 

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to add Supplemental 

Pleading” (Doc. 30), which Plaintiff has moved to withdraw (Doc. 32). The Court will 

grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 32). 

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-02610-JAT-ESW Document 34 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s 

Complaint to Add New Defendants and Counts” (Doc. 33). Plaintiff seeks leave to 

amend his First Amended Complaint to add new defendants and claims pursuant to Rule 

15 (a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. However, Local Rule 15.1(a) provides that:

A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the 

proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which must indicate in 

what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or 

striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added. The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any part of the 

preceding pleading, including exhibits.

LRCiv 15.1(a) (emphasis added).

“A district court has discretion to adopt local rules . . . . Those rules have ‘the 

force of law.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (citation omitted). Hence, 

both the parties and the Court are bound by the local rules. LRCiv. 83.3(c)(1) (“Anyone 

appearing before the court is bound by these Local Rules.”); Professional Programs 

Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994). A district 

court’s departure from its local rules is justified only if the effect is “so slight and 

unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook [it].” Id. (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has violated LRCiv 15.1 by failing to submit a copy of the proposed 

Second Amended Complaint that indicates in what respect it differs from the First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) (i.e. by bracketing or striking through the text to be 

deleted and underlining the text to be added). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion 

(Doc. 33) without prejudice. Should Plaintiff file a new motion to amend his First 

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

(Doc. 29).

- 3 -

Case 2:15-cv-02610-JAT-ESW Document 34 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Motion to Withdraw 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Pleading previously filed on August 15, 2016.” (Doc. 

32). The Clerk of Court is directed to withdraw Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Add 

Supplemental Pleading” (Doc. 30). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s “Motion for 

Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint to Add New Defendants and Counts” (Doc. 33). 

Dated this 21st day of September, 2016. 

- 4 - 

Case 2:15-cv-02610-JAT-ESW Document 34 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 4