Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02185/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02185-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 states that he failed to appear in Maricopa County Superior Court because

the Sheriff’s office had transferred him to the custody of ICE. ICE has again transferred him

to the custody of the Sheriff’s office and Plaintiff states he remains subject to an immigration

detainer.

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Riess, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kristine Brisson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2185-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Riess, who was then-confined in the Eloy Detention Center (EDC)

in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which was superceded

by the filing of a First Amended Complaint. (Doc.# 1, 4.) In an Order filed January 20,

2010, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.# 9.) In the same

Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and this action pursuant to Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Id.) Copies of the order were returned undeliverable

on February 1, 2010. (Doc.# 11.) On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of

address reflecting that he had been transferred to the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff

on a warrant for failure to appear.1

 (Doc.# 12.) Plaintiff has filed a request for a declaration

Case 2:09-cv-02185-RCB--ECV Document 17 Filed 04/05/10 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 -

that he is proceeding pro se in this case, because Sheriff’s office personnel require an order

before Plaintiff will be afforded access to Inmate Legal Services (ILS). (Doc.# 13.) The

Court will grant that request. Plaintiff has also filed motions for appointment of counsel and

to clarify the Order filed on January 20, 2010. (Doc.# 15, 16.) The motion to clarify will be

granted to the extent set forth below and the motion for appointment of counsel will be

denied. 

I. Request for Order Declaring Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status

Plaintiff has filed a request asking the Court to clarify in an Order that he has been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.# 13.) Plaintiff was granted in forma

pauperis status in connection with this action in the Order filed on January 20, 2010. The

Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. 

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

 Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel in this matter because it is complex, he has

been repeatedly transferred between federal and state custody and denied access to his legal

files, and state officials refuse to provide him access to indigent legal services, such as

copying and postage for legal mail. Counsel is only appointed in a civil rights action in

“exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101,

1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the

[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; see Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; Terrell, 935 F.2d

at 1017. This case has been dismissed pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey as not yet accrued and

judgment entered. The Court declines to appoint counsel where the action has been

dismissed. If Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel in another case, he must file a

motion in that case. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

Case 2:09-cv-02185-RCB--ECV Document 17 Filed 04/05/10 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 -

III. Motion for Clarification

The Court dismissed this action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

Plaintiff seeks clarification of the January 20, 2010 Order, doc.# 9, regarding when his civil

rights claims accrue under Heck. Plaintiff’s motion will be granted. As indicated in the

Court’s Order dismissing this case, Plaintiff’s claims for damages in this action will not

accrue under Heck, unless or until he prevails in his immigration proceedings or he is granted

habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Contreras v. Schiltgen, 122 F.3d 30, 32-33

(9th Cir. 1997) (until plaintiff successfully overturned state conviction, former Immigration

and Naturalization Service was entitled to rely on conviction as basis for custody and

eventual deportation), aff’d on add’l grounds Contreras v. Schiltgen, 151 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.

1998). 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to declare that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in

this case is granted. (Doc.# 13.) Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status in this case

in an Order filed January 20, 2010, doc.# 9.

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. (Doc.# 15.) 

(3) Plaintiff’s motion for clarification of the January 20, 2010 Order, doc.# 9, is

granted to the extent set forth herein. (Doc.# 16.)

Dated this 2nd day of April , 2010 .

 

Case 2:09-cv-02185-RCB--ECV Document 17 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3