Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02548/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02548-1/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 1

Previously referred as 'Kline.'

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clinton Joseph Slone,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-2548-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

The complaint was filed November 12, 2004 (Doc. #1) and a Screening Order was

filed August 26, 2005, directing that Defendants Schriro, Klein1

 and Carlin file an Answer

to the Complaint (Doc. #8). An Answer was filed December 28, 2005 (Doc. #36) with

Defendants stating that a clerical error had occurred and that the Answer was earlier filed on

November 28, 2005 in this case under a difference case number (CIV 05-3736-PHX-MHM).

An Amended Complaint (Doc. #9) was filed September 9, 2005.

Pending before the Court are the following:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Location (Doc. #23);

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. #24);

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Error (Doc. #27);

4. Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. #40); and

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 66 Filed 05/10/06 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 - 2 -

5. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Reply (Doc.

#60).

A. Motion to Compel Location.

In his Motion to Compel Location, Plaintiff requests not only the address for Officer

Klein but also the inmate number for inmate Reggis/Reggie Williams not only in Arizona but

also in Ohio. On December 14, 2005, Defendants waived service for Defendant Klein.

Therefore, Plaintiff's request will be denied as moot. With regarding to obtaining inmate

Williams' inmate number, Defendants have indicated that they have performed due diligence

in trying to locate the requested information to no avail. Moreover, pursuant to Arizona

Department of Corrections Department Order 909.01, Plaintiff is not authorized to have this

information.

B. Motion to Appoint Counsel.

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel because he lacks legal training, cannot

afford counsel, and because the issues in this matter are complex.

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson

v. Dep't of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel in a civil

rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1986)). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the court should consider the

likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims in view

of their complexity. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). 

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. Moreover, Plaintiff’s numerous filings with the Court as well as the pending

motion, indicate that Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the

Court. After reviewing the file, the Court determines that this case does not present

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 66 Filed 05/10/06 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 - 3 -

exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's

motion will be denied.

C. Motion to Amend/Correct Error.

In his motion to correct error, Plaintiff states that he inadvertently excluded some

information from his reply to his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff's Motion for

Preliminary Injunction was denied on March 31, 2006 (Doc. #53). Therefore, Plaintiff's

motion will be denied as moot.

D. Motion to Stay Discovery.

Defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery pending ruling on their Motion to

Dismiss. A scheduling order has not been filed regarding this matter. Upon the Court's

ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion for

Partial Dismissal, a separate order will issue regarding discovery deadlines. Accordingly,

Defendants' request to stay discovery will be denied as premature.

E. Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Reply.

Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendants' Reply (#59); Defendants requested that the

Court strike the objections, or in the alternative they seek leave to file a response to Plaintiff's

objections because he states new arguments. The Court will deny Defendants' Motion to

Strike and grant Defendants leave to file a response.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Location of

Officer Klein's address (Doc. #23-1), as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying

Plaintiff's request to obtain the inmate number of Inmate Williams (Doc. #23-2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc.

#24), without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Error

(Doc. #27), as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc.

#40), as premature.

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 66 Filed 05/10/06 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 - 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's

Objections to Defendants' Reply (Doc. #60). Defendants shall have up to and including May

25, 2006 to respond to Plaintiff's new issues raised in his sur-reply.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02548-MHM Document 66 Filed 05/10/06 Page 4 of 4