Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00046/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00046-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

JDDL-K

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joshua Erik Bowler, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-0046-PHX-RCB (JFM)

O R D E R

Plaintiff Joshua Erik Bowler, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, Browning Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to

amend. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11.) On August 12,

2013, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim with leave

to amend within 30 days. (Doc. 13.) On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for

extension of time to file a second amended complaint and a motion for appointment of

counsel. (Doc. 14, 15.) The Court will deny the motion for appointment of counsel, but will

grant Plaintiff an extension of time as set forth herein.

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because he is indigent and because he does

not understand how to amend to correct the deficiencies in his prior complaints. There is no

constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd of Regents

of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings in forma pauperis,

the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford one. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when

Case 2:13-cv-00046-RCB--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/19/13 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

1

 Specifically, Plaintiff alleged a claim for threat to safety. To state a claim under

§ 1983 for failure to protect or threats to safety, an inmate must allege facts to support that

he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that prison

officials were “deliberately indifferent” to those risks. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

832-33 (1994). To adequately allege deliberate indifference, he must allege facts to support

that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to his safety. Id. at 837. That

is, “the official must both [have been] aware of facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he must also [have] draw[n] the

inference.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff must allege facts to support when and how any particular

defendant knew of a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff and that the defendant disregarded

or failed to take steps to protect Plaintiff.

JDDL-K - 2 -

“exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of

the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

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

 Having considered both elements, Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional

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

prior Orders, the Court has described the standard to state the type of claims alleged by

Plaintiff.1

 Plaintiff should review those Orders and allege any facts that, if proven, may

entitle him to relief. 

Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff

states that he lacked access to his property while a protective custody review was being

conducted. The Court will grant Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to file a second

amended complaint.

Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

Case 2:13-cv-00046-RCB--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/19/13 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

C. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Plaintiff.

D. Possible “Strike”

Because the Complaint and First Amended Complaint were dismissed for failure to

state a claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies

identified in the Court’s August 12, 2013 Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under

the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner

may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in

any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed

on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, and the August 12, 2013 Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further

notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. (Doc. 15.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00046-RCB--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/19/13 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted to the extent set forth

below. (Doc. 14.) 

(3) Plaintiff is granted an additional 30 days from the filing date of this Order in

which to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the August 12, 2013 Order,

doc. 13.

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the extension granted

herein, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this

action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

DATED this 19th day of September, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00046-RCB--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 4