Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01944/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01944-2/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronnie Lovell Joseph, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1944-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronnie Lowell Joseph is litigating a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against

Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and K. S. Reddy. Currently before this Court are Plaintiff’s

motions for appointment of counsel (Doc. #3), for preliminary injunction (Docs. ##4, 6), and

for production of documents (Doc. #5). Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants Arpaio and Reddy violated his

constitutional rights by (1) discriminating against him due to the failure to provide him a

calling card, (2) discriminating against him by refusing to provide him a diet consistent with

his diagnosis of hypertension, (3) denying him a religious diet, and (4) denying him his due

process rights before placing him on a disciplinary “loaf diet” (Doc. #1). Plaintiff then filed

(1) a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (2) Motions for Preliminary Injunctions, and (3) a

Motion for Production of Documents (Docs. ##3-6). The Court subsequently screened

Plaintiff’s Complaint, dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination in

regards to his diet, and ordered Defendants Arpaio and Reddy to answer the remaining claims

(Doc. #7). 

Case 2:06-cv-01944-SMM-MHB Document 9 Filed 10/23/06 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 -

II. Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, arguing that the issues are complex, he cannot

adequately investigate, and as a result of him being blind in one eye he has problems reading

and writing (Doc. #3). Counsel is appointed in § 1983 actions only in “exceptional

circumstances.” 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.’” Id. The legal issues involved in Plaintiff’s case

are neither complex nor novel. Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances

entitling him to appointed counsel. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel will be

denied.

III. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff filed two motions for injunctive relief, apparently requesting that (1) he no

longer be subject to the “loaf meal program” and (2) he be provided a “hypertension diet”

(Docs. ##4, 6). Plaintiff alleged that he was placed on a loaf meal program in retaliation for

filing civil actions, and has been unable to eat because the loaf is burnt (Doc. #4). Plaintiff

also alleged that he is being provided a non-hypertension diet, which includes food such as

peanut butter and crackers (Doc. #6). Plaintiff asserts that this diet is known to cause

problems with hypertension (Id.). 

A request for injunctive relief requires that Plaintiff make a showing of “real or

immediate threat” of injury. Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina 199 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir.

1999); see also AGCC v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir.

1991). Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged or demonstrated that he faces a significant threat

of irreparable injury. In particular, Plaintiff has not alleged or demonstrated that (1) the loaf

diet, to which he admittedly is not permanently subjected, is insufficient to fulfill his

nutritious needs, or (2) the non-hypertension diet has resulted in a worsening of his medical

condition. Plaintiff is not entitled to the meal of his choice, only “to be provided with food

sufficient to sustain [him] in good health.” McElyea v Babbit, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir.

Case 2:06-cv-01944-SMM-MHB Document 9 Filed 10/23/06 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 -

1987). Plaintiff’s inability to eat an unappetizing and burnt meal due to his personal taste,

without an allegation that the meal is not sufficiently nutritious to sustain him, cannot support

a request for injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief will be

denied.

IV. Production of Documents

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Production of documents, requesting an order requiring

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to provide him a copy of the jail menus, or an order

preventing the Sheriff’s Officer from hindering his purchase of the menus (Doc. #5).

“Plaintiff may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that

the menu is relevant to any claim remaining in his action. Accordingly, his motion will be

denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s (1) Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #3),

(2) Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. ##4,6), and Motion for Production of Documents

(Doc. #5) are denied.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01944-SMM-MHB Document 9 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 3