Opinion
No. CV06-492 PHX-DGC.
April 12, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff Robert F. Bortolon has filed three motions. For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.
First, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Change Venue. Doc. #11. Plaintiff asks that this case, which he filed in Arizona, be transferred to New Hampshire or the East Coast because judges in Arizona will not be able to rule impartially. Although the only defendants named in the action are the United States, an un-named realty company, an un-named real estate buyer and two law firms, Plaintiff asserts that an un-named judicial officer and several un-named officers of the court, including local police, participated in crimes against him. These assertions are not sufficient to warrant a change of venue. Plaintiff provides no clear explanation as to why judges in this District will not be able to dispose of this case impartially.
Second, in his motion for change of venue, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a temporary restraining order against Defendants. Filed with his motion is a proposed order prohibiting Defendants from engaging in various kinds of conduct, including interfering with Plaintiff's right to visit his children and the looting of Plaintiff's property. The proposed restraining order requires that the United States, the un-named realty company, the un-named real estate buyer, and two law firms be suspended from their jobs and escorted from the property on which their offices are located.
Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order does not set forth specific facts by affidavit or verified complaint showing that such a restraining order is warranted and does not otherwise appear to be reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order will therefore be denied.
Third, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him in this action. Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford counsel, that the issues in this case are complex because judicial officers are implicated in a theft, that Plaintiff has been deported to Canada as a result of illegal prosecutions and convictions carried out in bad faith, and that Plaintiff has limited access to a United States law library.
The Court may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in exceptional circumstances where a plaintiff's claims appear to be meritorious and the plaintiff is unable to articulate the claims due to complexity of the issues. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff appears to have been subjected to criminal prosecution and deportation, as well as the loss of assets through a bankruptcy proceeding. He appears to be asserting claims against a variety of individuals involved in these actions, including the United States government and at least two law firms. Doc. #8. Plaintiff's filings do not demonstrate that his claims have merit, nor has Plaintiff shown an inability to articulate his position. The Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist in this case and accordingly will deny Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue (Doc. #11) is denied
2. Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #8) is denied.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #9) is denied.