Kleinfelt v. Gilbert

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 8, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00793
StatusUnknown

This text of Kleinfelt v. Gilbert (Kleinfelt v. Gilbert) 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
Kleinfelt v. Gilbert, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Daniel Alan Kleinfelt, No. CV 20-00793-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Correctional Officer III Gilbert, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Daniel Alan Kleinfelt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to 18 appoint counsel (Doc. 8) and a motion for leave to amend his Complaint (Doc. 11), and 19 filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court will deny the deficient Application to Proceed 20 and will give Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete 21 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions. 22 I. Payment of Filing Fee 23 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 24

25 1 Plaintiff filed a new case, Kleinfelt v. Gilbert, No. 2:20cv00872-PHX-JAT (JFM), 26 a few days after he commenced this case. If Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status in that case and he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, he will be 27 responsible for paying the filing fee for both this case and the new case. In that event, the Court would be required to collect 20% of Plaintiff’s previous month’s income, for each 28 case, each month. Bruce v. Samuels, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 627, 631 (2016) (“[Section] 1915(b)(2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential recoupment of multiple filing fees.”). 1 $50.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 2 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 3 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 4 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 5 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 6 institution where the inmate was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist 7 prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. 8 LRCiv 3.4. 9 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 10 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 11 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 12 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 13 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 14 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 15 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 16 II. Application Fails to Comply With Statute 17 Plaintiff has used the court-approved form and completed the “Acknowledgement 18 of Collection of Filing Fees from Trust Account” section. However, Plaintiff did not have 19 the “Certificate of Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account” section 20 completed,2 and Plaintiff did not submit a certified six-month trust account statement. In 21 light of these deficiencies, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed and will give 22 Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete 23 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 24 Although Plaintiff attached a printout of his Arizona Department of Corrections 25 (ADC) Inmate Account Summary statement to his Application to Proceed, the printout is 26 not certified by an authorized officer of the institution and does not show deposits and

27 2 Plaintiff attached copies of an April 6, 2020 Inmate Letter seeking information 28 for the certification and an April 6, 2020 letter stating that staff had refused to provide requested information to complete the Application as retaliation. 1 average monthly balances, as required. ADC has notified the Court that a certified trust 2 fund account statement showing deposits and average monthly balances is available from 3 the ADC’s Central Office. Accordingly, Plaintiff must obtain the certified copy of his ADC 4 trust fund account statement for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the 5 Complaint from the ADC’s Central Office. 6 III. Plaintiff’s Motions 7 Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because of his indigence, his belief that 8 the issues involved are complex, his incarceration, his limited knowledge of the law, and 9 his limited access to legal resources. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and memorandum 10 in support (Docs. 9 & 10) of his request for appointment of counsel. 11 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 12 Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings in forma pauperis, 13 the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford one. 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is required only when 15 “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 16 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation 17 of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his 18 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these 19 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 20 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 21 Having considered both elements, it does not appear at this time that exceptional 22 circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. 23 Plaintiff is in no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. Thus, the Court will 24 deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 25 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to amend his Complaint and filed a First 26 Amended Complaint. Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend his pleading once as a 27 matter course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive 28 pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service 1 of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Local Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 15.1 requires a party seeking leave to amend to submit a proposed amended 3 pleading. 4 Plaintiff has not previously amended his Complaint, and no Defendant has been 5 served. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has been filed (Doc. 12). Therefore, 6 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend will be denied as moot. 7 IV. Warnings 8 A.

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

Related

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)
Bruce v. Samuels
577 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kleinfelt v. Gilbert, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinfelt-v-gilbert-azd-2020.