Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00492/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00492-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

Robert F. Bortolon, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV06-492 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert F. Bortolon has filed three motions. For the reasons set forth below,

the motions will be denied.

First, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Change Venue. Doc. #11. Plaintiff asks that this

case, which he filed in Arizona, be transferred to New Hampshire or the East Coast because

judges in Arizona will not be able to rule impartially. Although the only defendants named

in the action are the United States, an un-named realty company, an un-named real estate

buyer and two law firms, Plaintiff asserts that an un-named judicial officer and several unnamed officers of the court, including local police, participated in crimes against him. These

assertions are not sufficient to warrant a change of venue. Plaintiff provides no clear

explanation as to why judges in this District will not be able to dispose of this case

impartially.

Second, in his motion for change of venue, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a

temporary restraining order against Defendants. Filed with his motion is a proposed order

Case 2:06-cv-00492-DGC Document 17 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

prohibiting Defendants from engaging in various kinds of conduct, including interfering with

Plaintiff’s right to visit his children and the looting of Plaintiff’s property. The proposed

restraining order requires that the United States, the un-named realty company, the un-named

real estate buyer, and two law firms be suspended from their jobs and escorted from the

property on which their offices are located.

Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order does not set forth specific facts

by affidavit or verified complaint showing that such a restraining order is warranted and does

not otherwise appear to be reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff’s request for a temporary

restraining order will therefore be denied.

Third, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him in this action.

Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford counsel, that the issues in this case are complex

because judicial officers are implicated in a theft, that Plaintiff has been deported to Canada

as a result of illegal prosecutions and convictions carried out in bad faith, and that Plaintiff

has limited access to a United States law library.

The Court may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in exceptional

circumstances where a plaintiff’s claims appear to be meritorious and the plaintiff is unable

to articulate the claims due to complexity of the issues. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff

appears to have been subjected to criminal prosecution and deportation, as well as the loss

of assets through a bankruptcy proceeding. He appears to be asserting claims against a

variety of individuals involved in these actions, including the United States government and

at least two law firms. Doc. #8. Plaintiff’s filings do not demonstrate that his claims have

merit, nor has Plaintiff shown an inability to articulate his position. The Court does not find

that exceptional circumstances exist in this case and accordingly will deny Plaintiff’s request

for the appointment of counsel.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue (Doc. #11) is denied

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #8) is denied.

Case 2:06-cv-00492-DGC Document 17 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #9) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of April, 2006.

 

Case 2:06-cv-00492-DGC Document 17 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 3