Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00378/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00378-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Michael Carl Allen, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex – Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Second Amended Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 48.) The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 83), 

recommending that Defendants Manzano, Jhonson, and Hendrix be dismissed without 

prejudice. Plaintiff has objected to the R&R and moves for appointment of counsel (Doc. 

85). For the following reasons, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R, and denies his 

request. 

I. Report and Recommendation 

 The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by a magistrate judge in a habeas case. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). The Court must undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to 

which specific objections are made. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. 

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a petitioner is not entitled 

Michael Carl Allen, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Sgt. Modi, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-00378-PHX-SPL (JFM)

ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 87 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

as of right to de novo review of evidence and arguments raised for the first time in an 

objection to the R&R, and whether the Court considers the new facts and arguments 

presented is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Here, after carefully detailing the history of attempts to assist Plaintiff to 

accomplish service, and the notice provided to him to timely prosecute his case, the 

Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff had failed to show that good cause or excusable 

neglect justifies a further extension of the time to complete service on Defendants 

Manzano, Jhonson, and Hendrix. Among other reasons, the Magistrate Judge duly noted 

that “[t]his case is already over 17 months old, the time for service expired over two 

months ago, and the case is nearing completion, with all but the final pretrial motions 

deadline expired.” (Doc. 83.) While Plaintiff has objected to the R&R, his objection does 

not point to any specific flaw in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or findings. Instead, he 

offers only general objections. To that end, these objections largely consist of criticisms 

of the justice system and a general reiteration of the complaints that were addressed by 

the Magistrate Judge, but without any reference to the Magistrate Judge’s findings with 

regard to those complaints. 

 Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district judge must 

review de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis 

added). The inherent purpose of this requirement is judicial economy. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Because de novo review of an 

entire R&R would defeat this purpose, a general objection serves to have the same effect 

as if Plaintiff had failed to object entirely. As a result, the Court has no obligation to 

review Plaintiff’s general objection to the R&R. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (no review 

at all is required for “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The R&R will 

therefore be adopted and the unserved defendants will be dismissed. 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 87 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

II. Appointment of Counsel 

 Next, Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel. He argues that counsel should 

be appointed “to level out the playing field of professional assistance [and] to keep 

Plaintiff true to [the] Court’s schedule. (Doc. 85 at 3.) 

 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. Corrs. 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 F.3d 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. As 

Defendant Modi’s Motion for Summary Judgment is presently under advisement, the 

Court cannot say that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits at 

this juncture. Nor has Plaintiff shown that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this 

case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Rather, Plaintiff’s filings with the 

Court, as exemplified by the instant objection and motion, indicate that Plaintiff is 

capable of navigating his 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 is in no 

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 87 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. Having failed to show that 

exceptional circumstances are present, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will 

be denied. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 83) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That Defendants Manzano, Jhonson, and Hendrix are dismissed without 

prejudice; 

3. That Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 85) is denied; 

and 

4. That this matter shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf 

pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial 

proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Dated this 14th day of August, 2015.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00378-SPL-JFM Document 87 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 4