Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00019/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00019-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danny Miller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Donald Sloan, Facility Health

Administrator; Ronolfo Macabuhay,

Healthcare Provider; and Richard Pratt,

Medical Services Administrator, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-19-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the p art ies’ motions for reconsideration of the Court’s

order granting partial summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. Docs. ##90, 93. Also

pending is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and Defendants’ motion for

enlargement of time to submit the proposed final pretrial order. Docs. ##89, 95. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions for reconsideration and motion

for appointment of counsel and grant the motion for enlargement of time.

I. The Motions for Reconsideration.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se civil right s complaint against

Defendants on January 5, 2004. Doc. #1. Plaintiff alleged in an amended complaint that

Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right s by being deliberately indifferent to his

Case 2:04-cv-00019-DGC Document 96 Filed 01/06/06 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 -

serious medical needs. Doc. #50. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he has irritable bowel

syndrome (“IBS”) and that Defendants failed to renew his Metamucil and Bentyl

prescriptions because they were too expensive. He also alleged t hat Defendants refused

his request for a “no spice” diet because he was not allergic to spices. Id.

On December 1, 2005, the Court granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor

with respect to the no spice diet and Metamucil claims and denied summary judgment with

respect to the Bentyl claim. Doc. #87. Plaintiff contends that the Court erred by

misinterpreting facts and improperly weighing evidence in Defendants’ favor. Doc. #90

at 2-4. Defendant s cont end that the Court erred because Plaintiff offered no evidence that

he was denied Bentyl due to its costs other t han his own “self-serving” declaration. Doc.

#93 at 5-6. Defendants further contend that it is unclear whether Defendants Sloan and

Pratt remain in t he case. Id. at 6. Defendants argue for the first time that “neither

Defendant Sloan nor Pratt were involved in prescribing, approving, or ordering Bentyl for

Plaintiff[.]” Id. at 7.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not t he p lace for parties to

make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See

N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988);

United States v . Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). A motion for

reconsideration may be granted if (1) the movant makes a convincing showing that the

Court failed t o consider material facts presented to the Court before the order was issued,

(2) there are newly discovered material facts that the movant could not have discovered

through reasonable diligence before the order was issued, or (3) material facts have

occurred or t he law has changed after the order was issued. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B.

Rodgers Mech. Contrs., Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

The parties have not met this st andard. They simply ask the Court to reconsider its

prior rulings and, in the case of Defendants, to consider a new argument. The Court will

deny the motions for reconsideration.

Case 2:04-cv-00019-DGC Document 96 Filed 01/06/06 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 -

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

In his motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff st at es that he has difficulty

reading and writing because he is dyslexic. Doc. #89 at 2. Plaintiff further states that he

knows nothing about preparing for trial, representing himself in court, or the rules and

p rocedures he is required to follow. Id. Plaintiff claims that all of his filings in this case

have been prepared with the assistance of a “jailhouse lawyer” named J.D. Merrick. Id.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd.

of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court does have

discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1);

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,

1093 (9th Cir. 1980). “A finding of exceptional circumst ances requires an evaluation of both

‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner t o articulate his or

her claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331(quoting Weygant v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “ Neit her of these

factors is disp osit ive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on

request of counsel” under section 1915(e)(1). Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

The main issue t o be t ried in this case is whether Plaintiff was denied a Bentyl

prescription due to its cost. Given the conflicting testimony , t he Court cannot conclude

that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on this issue at trial. Nor can t he Court conclude that

Plaintiff is unable to continue to litigate the issue pro se. With the assistance of a fellow

inmate, Plaintiff has filed numerous well-writ t en documents in this case and has survived

summary judgment on one of his claims. The Court finds that this case does not present

“exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel.

III. Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time.

Pursuant to the Court’s order setting final p ret rial conference, the parties are

required to lodge a proposed final pretrial order by January 6, 2006. Doc. #88 ¶ 2. Counsel

for Defendants moves the Court to extend this deadline to 45 days after the Court rules on

the parties’ motions for reconsideration. Doc. #95 at 2. Counsel seeks the extension

Case 2:04-cv-00019-DGC Document 96 Filed 01/06/06 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 -

because she will be engaged in expert depositions in January 2006 and is scheduled to be

in trial in another case starting on February 14, 2006. The Court will grant the motion

because counsel has shown good cause for extending the pretrial order deadlines.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties’ motions for reconsideration (Docs. ##90, 93) are denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #89) is denied.

3. Defendants’ motion for enlargement of time (Doc. #95) is granted.

4. The final pretrial conference shall be held on March 10, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

5. The parties shall lodge the proposed final pretrial order and file a joint

statement of the case and proposed voir dire questions, jury instructions, and forms of

verdict by February 17, 2006.

6. The parties shall file all motions in limine by February 17, 2006. Responses

to motions in limine shall be filed by February 24, 2006.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00019-DGC Document 96 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 4