Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325-4/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 

Joseph Gerald Eldridge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JD Schroeder, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01325-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Joseph Eldridge is currently confined at the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona. On June 13, 2014, he filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint against Defendant JD Schroeder. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge 

Eileen Willett. Several months later, Eldridge filed a motion for court-appointed counsel. 

Doc. 24. On April 23, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying the motion. 

Doc. 28. Eldridge has filed a timely appeal of the order. Doc. 30. 

 Courts may only disturb an order of a magistrate judge if the decision is “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “The reviewing court may not 

simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & Cnty. of 

San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 The Court finds no clear error. There is no constitutional right to appointment of 

counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th 

Cir. 1991). And as the Magistrate Judge noted, Eldridge failed to demonstrate 

“exceptional circumstances” that would lead the Court to conclude otherwise. Doc. 28 at 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 35 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

2. Eldridge asserts he will face difficulty conducting depositions, requesting and 

receiving documents, and that the new facility at which he is currently housed does not 

have a law library. Doc. 30 at 1-2. But as the Magistrate Judge noted in her order, 

Eldridge has successfully managed his case up to this point. Doc. 28 at 2. And he has 

failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that he is experiencing 

difficulty with complex issues in this case. He raises no such arguments now, and thus 

the Court will affirm the decision of the Magistrate Judge. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s April 23, 2015 

order is denied. 

 Dated this 29th day of June, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 35 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2