Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00746/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00746-1/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

RICHARD L. TILLMON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MARICOPA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-746-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Richard Tillmon’s (“Plaintiff”) motion

for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson’s December 17, 2007

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #43) and (2) Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Anderson’s March 27, 2008 order that

Defendants need not respond to Plaintiff’s third and fourth motions for production of

documents. (Dkt. #84). After reviewing the motions and Judge Anderson’s orders, the

Court issues the following order.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and only appropriate if the Court “(1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). Indeed, motions for reconsideration are

Case 2:07-cv-00746-MHM Document 105 Filed 07/24/08 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

- 2 -

not the time for parties to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See

Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D.Ariz. 2003) (citing Northwest

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

I. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider Magistrate Judge Anderson’s December 17,

2007 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. #43). There is

no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson V. U.S.

Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a

district court has the discretion to appoint counsel in civil actions brought in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See U.S. v. $292,888.04, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th

Cir. 1995). In the Ninth Circuit, appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required

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

1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the

district court should consider the likelihood of the movant’s success on the merits and his

ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

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

Magistrate Judge Anderson correctly addressed this applicable law in his

December 17, 2007 order. He then considered Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his

motion to appoint counsel, e.g., that Plaintiff lacks legal training, that his imprisonment

will limit his ability to litigate, and that the case is complex. (Dkt. #40). Judge Anderson

found that “Plaintiff’s lack of legal knowledge and incarceration do not provide a basis

for appointing counsel.” (Id., p.1). Judge Anderson further stated that “Plaintiff 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.” (Id., p.2). Judge Anderson found that no exceptional circumstances existed

and therefore denied Plaintiff’s motion. The December 17, 2007 order also noted that the

court might revisit the issue of appointing counsel if appropriate at a later date.

Case 2:07-cv-00746-MHM Document 105 Filed 07/24/08 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

- 3 -

In support of his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff reiterates the same

statements made in support of his original motion for appointment of counsel, i.e., that

Plaintiff is un-educated, indigent, and imprisoned, the case is complex and Plaintiff is

likely to succeed on the merits. (Dkt. #43). Plaintiff also cites the Court to the same two

cases that he cited in his original motion – Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390 (2d Cir.

1997), and Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 461 (3rd Cir. 1997). Hendricks and Parham

are Second and Third Circuit cases, respectively, and both adhere to a standard that

counsel should be appointed in cases where the plaintiff has made “a threshold showing

of some likelihood of merit.” Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 393; Parham 126 F.3d at 461. The

Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, as stated by Magistrate Judge Anderson in his December

17, 2007 order, instead requires that counsel be appointed in civil cases only when

warranted by “exceptional circumstances.” See $292,888.04 in United States Currency,

54 F.3d at 569 (“Under section 1915(d), counsel may be designated only in ‘exceptional

circumstances.’ ”) (citation omitted). This Court is bound by the dictates of the Ninth

Circuit, not those of the Second or Third Circuits. Hendricks and Parham are inapposite.

The Court finds no basis on which to reconsider Magistrate Judge Anderson’s

December 17, 2007 denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Although Plaintiff

states that he is imprisoned, indigent, and un-educated, based on a review of Plaintiff’s

motion and the docket in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff is able to adequately

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of this case. Further, based on the

Court’s review of Plaintiff’s motion and the docket sheet in this case, it appears that

Plaintiff is able to adequately proceed with his claims against Defendants. The Court

agrees with Magistrate Judge Anderson and finds that exceptional circumstances do not

exist to warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. As such, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Anderson’s December 17, 2007

order. However, as Judge Anderson stated in his December 17, 2007 order, the Court

notes that the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel at this stage in the litigation

Case 2:07-cv-00746-MHM Document 105 Filed 07/24/08 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 -

does not foreclose Plaintiff from again moving the Court for appointment of counsel if

appropriate at a later date. 

II. MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider Magistrate Judge Anderson’s March 27, 2008

order granting Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s third and fourth requests for

production of documents. (Dkt. #80). In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff states

that the discovery that he received from Defendants was incomplete. (Dkt. #84). 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants “to release the ‘Findings

Section’ of the M.C.S.O. Internal Affairs Report - IA #2006-0149.” (Id., p.2). After

reviewing the docket, the Court notes that Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel

the release of that report, which was granted by Magistrate Judge Anderson on April 28,

2008. (Dkt. #92). As such, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

Judge Anderson’s March 27, 2008 order as moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

Magistrate Judge Anderson’s December 17, 2008 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Dkt. #43). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

Magistrate Judge Anderson’s March 27, 2008 order granting Defendants’ motion to strike

Plaintiff’s third and fourth requests for production is DENIED as moot. (Dkt. #84). 

DATED this 21st day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00746-MHM Document 105 Filed 07/24/08 Page 4 of 4