Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01374/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01374-0/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

Cristy Dawn Chacon,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01374-PHX-JJT (ESW)

ORDER

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Christy Dawn Chacon, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Perryville/San Pedro Unit in Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se 

civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its October 1, 2014 Order, the 

Court dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff failed to state a claim (Doc. 3). The 

Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 

identified in the Order. On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed her First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 4). In its January 14, 2015 Order, the Court dismissed the First 

Amended Complaint because Plaintiff failed to state a claim (Doc. 6). The Court gave 

Plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 

identified in the Order. On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 10). The Court ordered Defendants Ryan, Pratt, Arnold, and Coleman to answer 

the Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants filed Answers (Docs. 17, 18). All 

issues are joined. Plaintiff alleges a single count of inadequate medical treatment in 

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 44 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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

violation of the Eighth Amendment. She seeks compensatory damages and injunctive 

relief. 

Pending before the Court are several motions. 

DISCUSSION

1. “Motion for Modification to Allow Additional Time or Extend Deadlines 

on Scheduling Order” (Doc. 32)

On September 10, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order (Doc. 30), setting a 

discovery deadline of May 11, 2016. Plaintiff immediately requested that additional time 

be added to the deadlines set by the Court because (i) Plaintiff does not have a copy of 

the “local rules,” (ii) Plaintiff does not have an attorney to help her litigate her case, and 

(iii) Plaintiff’s money transfer request remains pending with the Deputy Warden of the 

prison. Plaintiff intends to hire a private investigator to assist her with her case. She has 

filed five Declarations from family and fellow inmates in support of her case (Docs. 33-

37). Plaintiff has also filed “Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories” directed to each 

Defendant (Docs. 24-28). 

Plaintiff does not indicate to the Court how much additional time she will need in 

order to complete discovery. Nor does Plaintiff set forth good cause to extend the 

generous deadlines set by the Court. Plaintiff’s prior requests for an attorney were denied 

(Docs. 9, 23). Plaintiff has not hired an investigator. Plaintiff has been articulating her 

position clearly through the documents she has filed with the Court. She has initiated 

discovery. 

The Court will deny “Motion for Modification to Allow Additional Time or 

Extend Deadlines on Scheduling Order” (Doc. 32).

2. “Motion to Request Emergency Counsel” (Doc. 38)

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel because (i) the Arizona 

Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) has delayed her money transfer request, hindering 

her ability to hire a private investigator; (ii) the resource library at the prison is 

insufficient for Plaintiff to present information to the Court; and (iii) Plaintiff believes 

that ADOC is retaliating against her so she will “drop the complaint against the ADOC”

- 2 -

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 44 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

(Doc. 38 at 2). 

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

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)). 

Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has she shown 

that she is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the 

issues involved. Plaintiff’s continued filings with the Court, as well as the instant 

motion, indicate that Plaintiff remains capable of navigating her proceedings and

presenting 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.”). Plaintiff remains in a position no different than many 

pro se prisoner litigants. Having failed to show that any exceptional circumstances are 

present, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

- 3 -

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 44 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

3. Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 39)

Rule 5(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., states that “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.” LRCiv 5.2 provides that “[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.” 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents is a request for the production of 

documents in Defendants’ possession. Such discovery requests must be served upon the 

Defendants, not the Court. Plaintiff has not “used” these discovery requests in the 

proceeding (e.g. by relying upon responses in support of a motion, supporting a motion to 

compel, etc.). Therefore, Plaintiff’s filing of the actual discovery requests instead of a 

“Notice of Service” is in violation of LRCiv 5.2 and Rule 5(d), Fed. R. Civ. P. In 

addition, because Defendants have not been served with the discovery requests, 

Defendants have not yet objected to the production of the documents, necessitating a 

motion to compel the production of the documents sought. See Rules 34 (b) and 

37(a)(3)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. The Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 30 at 3) specifically 

requires the parties to attempt to resolve discovery matters through personal consultation 

and sincere effort as required by LRCiv 7.2(j) prior to filing a discovery motion with the 

Court. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. 39) will be denied as 

premature. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED denying “Motion for Modification to Allow Additional Time 

or Extend Deadlines on Scheduling Order” (Doc. 32).

- 4 -

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 44 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 5
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 denying “Motion to Request Emergency Counsel” 

(Doc. 38). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying “Motion for Production of Documents” 

(Doc. 39). 

Dated this 21st day of January, 2016. 

- 5 - 

Case 2:14-cv-01374-JJT-ESW Document 44 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 5