Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01760/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01760-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RICHARD STEVEN REISS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 09-1760-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

KARL STANSEL, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Plaintiff pro se, Richard Reiss, currently has two motions

pending before the court: (1) a “Renewed Motion for Appointment of

Counsel” (Doc. 145); and (2) a “Request for Further Extension of

Time to Submit Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order [“JFPO”] (Doc.

149). Defendants Karl Stansel and Niles Behrens oppose the former,

but not the latter. 

In that first motion, plaintiff is seeking appointment of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to represent him in the

trial of this matter. That statute authorizes a court, in its

discretion, to “request an attorney to represent any person unable

to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (West 2006). 

Alternatively, if the court denies that relief, plaintiff 

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 155 Filed 09/09/11 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

- 2 -

“requests” appointment of counsel “at least[] in any advisory

capacity to assist and advise him[]” during the trial. Mot. (Doc.

145) at 2. Plaintiff bases this motion on his unfamiliarity with

civil trials and his limited access to legal research resources. 

As defendants accurately point out, nothing has changed since

April 16, 2010, when the Honorable Edward C. Voss, United States

Magistrate Judge, denied plaintiff’s original motion for

appointment of counsel. In denying that motion, the Magistrate

Judge held that plaintiff did not satisfy the exceptional

circumstances of section 1915(e)(1) because he could not show “a

likelihood of success on the merits[;]” nor could he show “an

inability to articulate his claims in light of the complexities of

the issues.” Ord. (Doc. 26) at 2:24-25; and 2:21-22. In fact, to

the contrary, the Magistrate Judge stated that “[p]laintiff’s

filings establish that he is fully capable of presenting his

claims.” Id. at 2:22-23. 

That rationale is equally if not more compelling now. Since

that order denying counsel, as defendants point out, “[p]laintiff

has litigated this matter on his own through the summary judgment

stage, even surviving summary judgment on several claims.” Resp.

(Doc. 151) at 3:10-11. That fact further undermines plaintiff’s

suggestion that appointment of counsel is necessary because of a

purportedly insufficient law library at the Eloy Detention Center. 

In short, now as then, plaintiff has not made the requisite showing

of exceptional circumstances so as to warrant appointment of trial

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Nor, on this record,

does the court find that plaintiff is entitled to the appointment

of “advisory” counsel during the trial of this matter. Thus, in

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 155 Filed 09/09/11 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

- 3 -

all respects, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for appointment

of counsel.

As to plaintiff’s request for further extension of time to

submit a JFPO, defendants do not oppose that request, “if the Court

is inclined to grant one[]” which it is. See Resp. (Doc. 153) at

1:24-26. In so doing, the court stresses, however, that it is not

granting this motion based upon plaintiff’s allegations that

defendants have been uncooperative in preparing the proposed JFPO. 

If anything, it appears on this record that it is plaintiff Riess

who may have been less than totally cooperative. In any event, in

the interest of justice, the court will grant plaintiff an

extension of time. Plaintiff Reiss shall have fourteen (14) days

from the date of entry of this order in which to file his portions

of the JFPO. 

For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby ORDERS that:

(1) “Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

(Doc. 145) is DENIED in all respects; and

(2) Plaintiff’s “Request for Further Extension of Time to

Submit Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order” (Doc. 149) is GRANTED;

and

(3) Plaintiff shall file and serve his portions of the

Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order no later than fourteen (14)

days from the date of entry of this Order. 

DATED this 9th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 155 Filed 09/09/11 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

- 4 -

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 155 Filed 09/09/11 Page 4 of 4