Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01971/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01971-0/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

Joseph Andrew DeKenipp,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Paul R Babeu, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01971-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Joseph Andrew DeKenipp is a pro se prisoner confined in the Arizona 

Department of Corrections, Manzanita Unit, in Tucson, Arizona. He has filed a Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 23), alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2016, the Court screened the Second Amended Complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and ordered Defendants Johnson, Martinez, and Neal 

to answer Count One (Doc. 26 at 9). Counts Two, Three, and all other named Defendants 

were dismissed without prejudice (Id.). The Court sent service packets to the Plaintiff 

with instructions to complete and return the service packets to the Clerk of Court within 

twenty-one days for service of process by the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”). 

The Court set a time limit of sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of its Order (Doc. 

26) for the Plaintiff to complete service of process (Id.).

Prior to the Court having screened the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, 

Plaintiff filed a “Request for Service of Summons, Rules 4(b), 4(m), Fed. Rules Civil 

Case 2:14-cv-01971-DJH-ESW Document 29 Filed 09/16/16 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

Procedure” (Doc. 25). In his Request, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to serve the 

Defendants. The Court finds that the Request is premature as it was sought prior to the 

screening of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The Court’s Order (Doc. 26) 

renders Plaintiff’s Request moot. In fact, the Clerk of Court forwarded Plaintiff‘s 

completed service packets to the USMS on August 26, 2016. Time for service of process 

has not run, nor has USMS attempted service yet. The Request (Doc. 25) shall be denied 

without prejudice.

Also pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Pro Per Motion For Leave of Court 

For Appointment of Advisory Counsel Pursuant to 28 USC--§ 1915(e)(1); 42 USC§ 

1988; 18 USC § 300A, In a Complex Case Under 42 USC § 1983, by a State Prisoner.” 

(Doc. 28). By Order (Doc. 22) filed on March 24, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 

previous Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docs. 19-21). Plaintiff now requests the 

appointment of either counsel or advisory counsel due to the limitations Plaintiff faces 

while incarcerated, the complexity of his case, and his inability to afford an attorney.

As previously explained to the Plaintiff, there is no constitutional right to the 

appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 

820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 

(9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint 

counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ 

exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

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

issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983)) (italics in original); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be 

viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

- 2 -

Case 2:14-cv-01971-DJH-ESW Document 29 Filed 09/16/16 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 

Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 

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. Plaintiff’s continued filings with the Court, as well as the instant 

motion, indicate that Plaintiff remains capable of navigating his proceedings and 

presenting arguments to the Court. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was 

required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a 

demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would 

involve complex legal issues.”). Plaintiff remains in a position no different than many 

pro se prisoner litigants. This case has not been designated complex. Having failed to 

show that any exceptional circumstances are present, Plaintiff’s request for appointment 

of counsel or advisory counsel will be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s “Request for Service of 

Summons, Rule 4(b), 4(m), Fed. Rules Civil Procedure” (Doc. 25). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying “Plaintiff’s Pro Per Motion For Leave of 

Court For Appointment of Advisory Counsel Pursuant to 28 USC--§ 1915(e)(1); 42 

USC§ 1988; 18 USC § 300A, In a Complex Case Under 42 USC § 1983, by a State 

Prisoner.” (Doc. 28). 

Dated this 16th day of September, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:14-cv-01971-DJH-ESW Document 29 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 3