Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-03829/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-03829-6/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

Lee Michael Beitman,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Health Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-03829-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lee Michael Beitman’s Motion to Appoint 

Counsel (the “Motion”) (Doc. 204) and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 211).

1 For the 

following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff previously made four requests for the Court to appoint counsel. (Doc. 18; 

Doc. 105; Doc. 167; Doc. 183). The Court denied the September 12, 2018, request without 

prejudice. (Doc. 21). The Court denied the August 14, 2019, request “without prejudice if 

any of Plaintiff’s claims survive summary judgment.” (Doc. 112). The Court denied the 

April 24, 2020, request because “[t]his case [had] been referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen 

S. Willett for a settlement conference” and there was no apparent “reason why Plaintiff 

[could not] decide, without counsel, whether he should settle the case.” (Doc. 175 at 2). 

1 Notably, while Defendants do not “assent to the factual averments in the Motion

concerning alleged evidence fabrication,” they do not oppose the appointment of counsel 

for Plaintiff. (Doc. 211 at 1). Defendants request “that the Court extend all remaining dates 

and deadlines” should the Motion be granted. (Id.). 

Case 2:17-cv-03829-JAT Document 218 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

The Court ruled that Plaintiff may “rais[e] a subsequent request for counsel after the 

settlement conference should the settlement conference not result in settlement and 

dismissal of the case.” (Id. at 2–3). The Court denied the July 7, 2020, request for similar 

reasons. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was denied on March 18, 2020. (Doc. 

162). The settlement conference occurred on August 20, 2020, and the case did not settle. 

(Doc. 199). Per the Court’s August 14, 2019, and April 24, 2020, orders, Plaintiff has raised 

a subsequent request for counsel, which the Court now considers. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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

v. U.S. Dep’t. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). In proceedings in forma 

pauperis, “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) is required 

only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 

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

To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers the likelihood 

of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in view of their 

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

considerations must be analyzed together; neither is dispositive. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

III. ANALYSIS

Here, the Court finds that both factors for determining whether exceptional 

circumstances exist weigh in favor of appointing counsel. This matter presents complex 

legal issues like constitutional violations under the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff presenting 

his case at a jury trial, which presents numerous procedural complexities, and asserting 

Monell claims. (See Doc. 204 at 3; Doc. 162 at 2, 8, 19). Due to the complexity of the 

instant matter, Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison system, is unlikely to 

be able to effectively articulate his claims pro se at trial. See Carson v. Martinez, No. 

316CV01736JLSBLM, 2019 WL 6218778, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (appointing 

counsel due to an upcoming trial for a plaintiff who “demonstrated an ability to articulate 

Case 2:17-cv-03829-JAT Document 218 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

his claims, amend his pleading, engage in discovery, and to partially survive summary

judgment while proceeding without counsel”); Lewis v. Pugh, No. C17-5227MJP, 2019 

WL 325090, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 25, 2019) (holding that, inter alia, application of 

complex legal doctrine favored appointment of counsel); Anderson v. Talisman, No. 1:07-

CV-00715ALAP, 2009 WL 321281, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (holding that limitations 

due to imprisonment and constitutional claims at issue favored appointment of counsel).

Thus, the complexity of claims factor weighs in favor of appointing counsel.

Plaintiff has also demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits necessary for 

the Court to appoint counsel. “[G]iven that he has already defeated the motion for summary 

judgment, [Plaintiff] has adequately demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.” 

Lewis, 2019 WL 325090, at *4; see also Hollis, 2012 WL 5304756, at *6 (granting motion 

to appoint counsel after finding that “it [did] not appear that plaintiff’s claims [were] 

patently unmeritorious”). Thus, the likelihood of success factor weighs in favor of 

appointing counsel. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has satisfactorily shown likelihood of success on the 

merits and a limited ability to articulate his claims in view of their complexity, there are 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 204) is 

GRANTED. Daniel M. Staren is appointed as counsel for Plaintiff; the Clerk of the Court 

shall send notice to Daniel M. Staren at 400 E Van Buren St #1900, Phoenix, AZ 85004,

and at his email address of record in CM/ECF of this Order; Daniel M. Staren must file a 

notice of appearance within 10 days. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request “that the Court extend all 

remaining dates and deadlines” in their Response (Doc. 211) is DENIED. 

Dated this 10th day of November, 2020.

Case 2:17-cv-03829-JAT Document 218 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 3