Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02522/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02522-0/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

HOWARD F. JORDAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

RON WEAVER et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2522-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants

Greene and Johnson (Dkt. # 42) and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel by Plaintiff

Howard F. Jordan (Dkt. # 56). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’

motion and denies Plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2007, Plaintiff, a prisoner at the South Unit of the Arizona State

Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, filed the complaint underlying this action. (Dkt. # 1.)

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2008, in which Plaintiff alleged that he was

assaulted by Defendant Weaver, a commissary worker. (Dkt. # 15.) Defendant Greene is

alleged to be a Sergeant at the South Unit. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that he reported the

assault to Sgt. Greene and that Greene “did nothing.” (Id. at 5.) Defendant Johnson is

alleged to be an acting administrative deputy warden at the South Unit. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-02522-GMS Document 57 Filed 12/31/08 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

1

Plaintiff’s response was filed December 24, but because of the Christmas holiday it

was not docketed until December 29. (See Dkt. # 55.)

- 2 -

asserts that Johnson “is now allowing [Weaver] access to South Unit” and is thereby “failing

to protect [Plaintiff’s] safety.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff demands an injunction preventing Weaver

from being in the same yard as Plaintiff, as well as ten million dollars from each defendant.

(Id. at 7.)

This case was referred to a magistrate judge. (Dkt. # 2.) On October 27, 2008,

Defendants Greene and Johnson filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings.

(Dkt. # 42.) The magistrate gave Plaintiff notice that he was required to file a response by

December 1, 2008. (Dkt. # 43.) The notice warned Plaintiff that “[y]ou must timely respond

to this motion” and that “[t]he Court may, in its discretion, treat your failure to respond to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as a consent to the granting of that Motion without further

notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. at 2.) The magistrate subsequently

extended Plaintiff’s time to respond to December 15, 2008. (Dkt. # 50.) 

Plaintiff filed an untimely response.1

 (Dkt. # 55.) Plaintiff simultaneously filed a

motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 56.)

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendants’ motion, despite the magistrate’s

notice of the deadlines and warning of the consequences of the failure to timely respond. The

Court therefore treats that failure as consent to the granting of the motion pursuant to Rule

7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th

Cir. 1994); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds that, given

the court’s notice to Plaintiff and the previous extension of time, the public’s interest in

Case 2:07-cv-02522-GMS Document 57 Filed 12/31/08 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

2

The Court also notes that, under Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff

has the burden of proving the existence of a “clearly established” right. LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh,

205 F.3d 1146, 1157 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised by

the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated

were ‘clearly established.’”). Plaintiff, by failing to timely respond, has failed to meet that

burden. Moreover, Plaintiff’s untimely response expressly declines to object to Defendants’

qualified immunity argument and consents to dismissal under that theory. Therefore, entry

of judgment is proper.

- 3 -

expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket outweigh the

other factors and weigh against further delay in resolving Defendants’ motion.2

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

“[T]here is generally no right to counsel in a civil case.” Nicholson v. Rushen, 767

F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981)).

The Court, however, does have the discretion to appoint counsel in “exceptional

circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2006); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both

‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

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

1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request

of counsel” under § 1915(e)(1). Id.

Having considered both factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to

litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. While Plaintiff states that

he “is without adequate resources within the prison to effectively continue to prosecute his

claims,” such difficulties do not make his case exceptional. Accordingly, at the present time,

this case does not present “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel.

However, Plaintiff may contact the following organization to determine whether it

has an attorney available to represent Plaintiff pro bono or at a reduced rate:

Case 2:07-cv-02522-GMS Document 57 Filed 12/31/08 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 -

Volunteer Lawyers Program

305 South Second Avenue

P.O. Box 21538

Phoenix, Arizona 85036-1538

(602) 258-3434

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of

Defendants Greene and Johnson (Dkt. # 42) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Greene and Johnson are

DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(Dkt. # 56) is DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of December, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02522-GMS Document 57 Filed 12/31/08 Page 4 of 4