Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01813/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01813-0/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

Luis G. Valencia,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. Evans, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1813-PHX-FJM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #21),

Request for Special Order (Doc. #24), and Petition for Leniency for Failure to Reply to

Defendant's Answer (Doc. #25).

A. Appointment of Counsel

On August 15, 2005 (Doc. #3) Plaintiff requested that counsel be appointed. Plaintiff's

request was denied on October 20, 2005 (#5). Plaintiff again is requesting that this Court

appointment counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot afford counsel, and because the

issues in this matter are complex. (Id.) Plaintiff still 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

factual arguments to the Court. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case

does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. 

Case 2:05-cv-01813-FJM-DKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 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 -

B. Request for Special Order

In Plaintiff's request, he is requesting that this Court permit him to possess a typewriter

and tape recorder. Pursuant to ADOC Department Order 909, Plaintiff is not authorized to

possess these items. Moreover, Plaintiff's previous request to possess a typewriter (Doc. #6)

was denied on May 18, 2006 (Doc. #26) because it appears that Plaintiff did not comply with

Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Just as before, it does not appear that Plaintiff

provided service of his Motion upon Defendants nor certified the reasons why notice to

Defendants should not be required. Therefore, Plaintiff's request will be denied.

C. Petition for Leniency for Failure to Reply to Defendant's Answer

The Court will construe Plaintiff's Petition for Leniency for Failure to Reply as a request

for leave to file a response to Defendants' Answer. Pursuant to Rule 7(a), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure:

There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to counterclaim denominated

as such; and an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a

third-party complaint; if a person who was not an original party is summoned

under the provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party

complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court

may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.

The Court has not ordered that a response to the answer be filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's

request will be denied.

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

(Doc. #21) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Request for Special Order (Doc. #24).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Petition for Leniency for Failure to

Reply to Defendant's Answer (Doc. #25).

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01813-FJM-DKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2