Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01411/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01411-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Fred Eugene McDay,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Adam Lewis, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1411-PHX-SRB (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Address Limited Access to Respond

to Court Orders (Doc. #18), and Motion for Records (Doc. #25), and Defendant's Motion to

Extend Case Deadlines (Doc. #24).

A. Motion to Address Limited Access

In his Motion to Address Limited Access, Plaintiff states that he is not able to comply

with this Court's order due to his limited access to legal assistance in the Department of

Corrections and is requesting that the court appoint counsel.

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson

v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil rights

case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). In

determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the likelihood of success

on the merits, and t he abilit y of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view of their complexity.

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 2:05-cv-01411-SRB-DKD Document 26 Filed 05/30/06 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 -

Plaint iff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown

that he is experiencing difficulty in litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues

involved. Moreover, Plaintiff’s numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending

motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and fact ual arguments to the

Court. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present

exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel.

B. Motion for Records

In his M ot ion (Request) for Records, Plaintiff is requesting an order from the Court

directing that he be provided wit h medical records from the Maricopa County Hospital

Records Division. Plaint iff is advised that motions for discovery/compel need not be filed

with the Court but rather submitted to opposing counsel wit h a Notice of Service filed with

the Court. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(d):

All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a p arty, together with

a cert ificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after

service, but disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) and the following discovery

requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding

or the court orders filing: (i) depositions, (ii) interrogatories, (iii) requests for

documents or to permit entry upon land, and (iv) requests for admission.

Also see Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules),

LRCiv 5.2:

A "Notice of Service" of the disclosures and discovery requests and responses

list ed in Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed within

a reasonable time after service of such papers.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for medical records will be denied.

C. Motion to Extend Case Deadlines

Defendant is seeking t o extend the remaining deadlines for a period of sixty days in

order to obtain medical records prior to taking Plaintiff's deposition and to allow Plaintiff to

respond to interrogatories regarding his medical history. Upon good cause shown,

Defendant's request will be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to

Address Limited Access to Respond to Court Orders (Doc. #18).

Case 2:05-cv-01411-SRB-DKD Document 26 Filed 05/30/06 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Records (Doc. #25).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion t o Extend Case Deadlines

and extending the following deadlines as follows:

Deadline to take Plaintiff’s deposition: July 31, 2006

Dispositive Motion Deadline: August 30, 2006

Proposed Joint Pre-trial Order Deadline: September 29, 2006

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01411-SRB-DKD Document 26 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3