Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00446/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00446-3/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

Albert DeLeon,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Dora Schriro, et al,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-04-446-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Although captioned as a motion to clarify, Plaintiff has moved to stay this case until

he can obtain counsel (Doc. #259). Plaintiff had counsel in this litigation. Plaintiff's counsel

was forced to withdraw as a result of Plaintiff's actions. Therefore, the Court has no reason

to believe Plaintiff will be able to obtain replacement counsel. 

Additionally, in the motion Plaintiff alludes to this Court appointing counsel for him.

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Board

of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, because of

Plaintiff's interactions with former counsel, the Court has no reason to believe any counsel

would accept a pro bono appointment to represent Plaintiff. Finally, the Court does not find

the appointment of counsel to be justified. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.

1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, to the extent the

motion to clarify could be construed as a motion to appoint counsel, that request is denied.

In summary, the request to stay this case will be denied. The case was filed March

3, 2004. It is set for trial in December 2007. Plaintiff has a duty to promptly and diligently

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 260 Filed 11/07/07 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 -

prosecute his case even though he is incarcerated. Summary judgment was denied September

14, 2006. The parties have had ample time to prepare for trial. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to clarify (Doc. #259) is denied.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 260 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2