Higuera v. Glendale, City of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 29, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05554
StatusUnknown

This text of Higuera v. Glendale, City of (Higuera v. Glendale, City of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Higuera v. Glendale, City of, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Derek Anthony Higuera, No. CV 19-05554-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 City of Glendale, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff Derek Anthony Higuera, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff 18 filed a Motion for Legal Supplies (Doc. 5) and a Motion to Supplement the Complaint 19 (Doc. 6). On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel 20 (Doc. 7). On December 13, 2019, he filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 8). 21 The Court will grant the Application to Proceed, grant the Motion to Amend and 22 Motion to Supplement the Complaint in part, and deny without prejudice the Motion for 23 Legal Supplies and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff will have 30 days to file 24 an amended complaint that includes all allegations and claims. 25 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 26 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.81. The remainder of 1 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 2 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 4 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 5 II. Motion for Legal Supplies 6 In his Motion for Legal Supplies, Plaintiff requests an “Authorized Legal Indigent 7 Supply Package.” He claims that when he requested supplies from Maricopa County’s 8 Inmate Legal Services (ILS), he was told to obtain them from his attorney. However, “the 9 complaint in the USDC for Arizona is filed in forma pauperis and [Plaintiff has] no counsel 10 representative or assi[s]tant of any kind to provide [the] materials” he seeks. According to 11 Plaintiff, he lacks funds to purchase supplies “as of 10/28/2019” and is “very stressed at 12 borrowing with interest just to proceed with [his] case work.” 13 Pursuant to Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy DP-6, inmates with less than 14 five dollars in their inmate account who are representing themselves in suits against 15 government entities over conditions of confinement or other civil rights issues are eligible 16 to receive free writing materials on a bi-weekly basis.1 Although Plaintiff alleges that ILS 17 denied his request for supplies, it is not clear whether he advised ILS that he was seeking 18 supplies in connection with a pro se lawsuit concerning his conditions of confinement. Nor 19 is it clear that he is financially qualified to obtain such assistance. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 20 Motion for Legal Supplies will be denied without prejudice. 21 III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 22 In his Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Plaintiff requests that an attorney be 23 appointed to represent him because he cannot afford to hire counsel. There is no 24 constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents 25 of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings in forma pauperis, 26 the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford one. 28 U.S.C. 27

28 1 See https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Detention/DP-6.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2020). 1 § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when 2 “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 3 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation 4 of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his 5 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these 6 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 7 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 8 Having considered both elements, it does not appear at this time that exceptional 9 circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 10 Plaintiff is in no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. Thus, the Court will 11 deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 12 IV. Motion to Supplement and Motion to Amend 13 In his Motion to Supplement, Plaintiff seeks permission to add certain allegations 14 to his Complaint. In his Motion to Amend, he seeks permission to name an additional 15 Defendant—the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office—through either supplementation or 16 amendment. 17 Under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its 18 pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it; or (B) if the 19 pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a 20 responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 21 whichever is earlier. No Defendant has been served; accordingly, Plaintiff does not need 22 leave of the Court to amend his Complaint to add new allegations or Defendants. In the 23 interest of efficiency, however, the Court will grant the Motion to Amend and Motion to 24 Supplement to the extent that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the filing date of this Order 25 to file an amended complaint that includes all his allegations and claims.2 In all other 26

27 2 In filing in amended complaint, Plaintiff should be aware that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non-jural entity.” Melendres v. 28 Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). 1 respects, the Motions will be denied. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 2 30 days, the Court will proceed to screen the original Complaint as filed. 3 V. Leave to Amend 4 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint that includes all his 5 allegations and claims. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use 6 for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the 7 Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to 8 Plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Michael Andrew Hunter
19 F.3d 895 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Higuera v. Glendale, City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higuera-v-glendale-city-of-azd-2020.