Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02514/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02514-0/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 

Richard LeGrand Gause,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Indy, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02514-JJT-ESW

ORDER 

This is a civil rights action filed by pro se prisoner Richard LeGrand Gause 

(“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has reviewed the documents 

recently filed by Plaintiff (Docs. 21- 24) and issues the rulings set forth below. 

I. DISCUSSION 

A. Plaintiff’s “Request to be appointed counsel” (Doc. 21) 

In his May 27, 2016 filing (Doc. 21), Plaintiff requests that Court appoint him 

counsel. In support of his request, Plaintiff states in part that (i) he is “being denied 

access to the E-File system and access to have copies made”; (ii) the Arizona Department 

of Corrections (“ADC”) allegedly lied to the Marshals Service that Defendant Dr. Indy1

is no longer employed by ADC; (iii) he is unsure on how to proceed as to Defendant East, 

who may be deceased; and (iv) correctional officers “are making it near impossible to 

adequately meet deadlines and properly do this suit.” 

1 The doctor has been served and has answered. (Docs. 11, 17). The correct 

spelling of the doctor’s surname is “Ende” (Doc. 11 at 2). 

Case 2:15-cv-02514-JJT-ESW Document 25 Filed 06/07/16 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

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)); 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 F3.d at 970 (citing 

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

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

indicate that Plaintiff is capable of navigating this proceeding 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.

In sum, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional circumstances are present that would

require the appointment of counsel in this case. Having failed to show that any

exceptional circumstances are present, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will

be denied.

B. Plaintiff’s “Extension on time frames of Discovery” (Doc. 22)

In the above filing, Plaintiff requests an “indefinite time extension to produce 

Discovery Request #1 until copies can be made.” Plaintiff’s filing, dated May 24, 2016, 

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-02514-JJT-ESW Document 25 Filed 06/07/16 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

states that Plaintiff is in detention and is “being denied access to make copies, also access 

to the E-File system.” The Court notes that on May 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document 

captioned “Discovery Response” (Doc. 20). The document states “[a]ttached are 

requested Documents in #1 Discovery Request.” Plaintiff’s “Extension on time frames of 

Discovery” (Doc. 22) will be denied as moot.

C. Plaintiff’s May 27, 2016 Filing at Doc. 23, Docketed as “Notice re: 

Discovery Request”

On May 27, 2016, the Clerk of Court docketed a document signed by Plaintiff that 

is addressed to Mark Brnovich with the subject line “Discovery Request.” The 

introductory paragraph states “Hi, I’m writing with my first Discovery Request.” 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5(d) states that “the following discovery 

requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court 

orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or tangible things or to 

permit entry onto land, and requests for admission.” LRCiv 5.2 provides that “[a] 

‘Notice of Service’ of the disclosures and discovery requests and responses listed in Rule 

5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed within a reasonable time after 

service of such papers.”

Plaintiff has not “used” the discovery requests contained in his filing (Doc. 23) in 

the proceeding (e.g. by relying upon responses in support of a motion, supporting a 

motion to compel, etc.). Therefore, Plaintiff’s filing of the actual discovery requests 

instead of a “Notice of Service” is in violation of LRCiv 5.2 and Rule 5(d) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing docketed as “Notice re: 

Discovery Request” (Doc. 22) will be stricken.

D. Plaintiff’s Filing at Doc. 24, Docketed as “Motion for Copy of Discovery 

Response”

On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document captioned as “Need Discovery 

Response Copy,” which the Clerk of Court docketed as “Motion for Copy of Discovery 

Response.” Plaintiff provides a detailed recount of an alleged error that resulted in 

Plaintiff not receiving a complete copy of Document 20. The Court will direct the Clerk 

- 3 -

Case 2:15-cv-02514-JJT-ESW Document 25 Filed 06/07/16 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 

of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of Document 20. 

E. Service on Defendants East and Dentist Doe 

The Court ordered service of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) on 

Defendants Ende, FHA Doe, Dentist Doe, East, and Utterbeck. (Doc. 9 at 15). All 

defendants have been served and have answered except for Defendant East and Dentist 

Doe. (Docs. 11-17). The time for the completion of service on Defendants East and Doe 

has expired. (Doc. 9 at 16). Accordingly, by June 20, 2016, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why Defendants East and Dentist Doe should not be dismissed without prejudice from 

this action for failure to serve pursuant to the Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Request to be Appointed Counsel” (Doc. 

21). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s “Extension on time 

frames of Discovery” (Doc. 22). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff’s 

May 27, 2016 filing at Doc. 23, docketed as “Notice re: Discovery Request.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting to the extent set forth herein Plaintiff’s 

filing at Doc. 24, docketed as “Motion for Copy of Discovery Response.” The Clerk of 

Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of Document 20. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by June 20, 2016, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why Defendants East and Dentist Doe should not be dismissed without prejudice from 

this action for failure to serve pursuant to the Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated this 6th day of June, 2016. 

- 4 - 

Case 2:15-cv-02514-JJT-ESW Document 25 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 4