From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Forbes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 24, 2012
No. CV-12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA) (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV-12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA)

10-24-2012

Theodore Jacob Jones, Plaintiff, v. CO II Forbes, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Order re Service, doc. 33, and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, doc. 34.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a pro se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint on March 1, 2012, doc. 1, and a First Amended Complaint, doc. 9, on May 3, 2012. After the mandatory screening process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), Defendants Forbes and Sanchez were ordered to answer the amended complaint. (Doc. 11) Defendant Sanchez was served on August 22, 2012. (Doc. 26)

On September 14, 2012, the Court ordered Defendant Sanchez to provide Plaintiff with the last know address for Defendant Forbes. (Doc. 30) On September 28, 2012, Defendant filed a Notice of Compliance with the above-mentioned order. (Doc. 32) Thereafter, on October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order re: Service Address. (Doc. 33) Additionally, on October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 34)

II. Discussion

A. Motion for Order re: Service

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's attempt to provide notice of a proper address was inadequate because Defendant provided a Post Office Bos through which Plaintiff cannot effectuate proper service. Plaintiff further states, however, that the provided the United States Marshal Service ("USMS") Defendant's current employment address, but that the Marshal's Service has not responded to Plaintiff's letters nor have they informed him whether Defendant Forbes has been served. (Doc. 33 at 2) Plaintiff does not state the date on which he provided the USMS with the new address for Defendant Forbes. However, the docket indicates that the service packet for Defendant Forbes was forwarded to the USMS on October 1, 2012.

Ultimately, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to provide the proper address for the Defendant in order to effectuate service. Toscana v. Cambra, 2003 WL 21432919, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2003). It is not the Court's role or responsibility to track down the addresses of the defendants. The Court has taken many steps to help facilitate Plaintiff's efforts in attempting to serve Defendant Forbes, including providing multiple blank subpoenas. It is premature at this point for Plaintiff to move for an order to effectuate adequate service. If Plaintiff cannot provide the USMS with an appropriate address as to where to serve Defendant Forbes, the Court can do little more at this juncture. Therefore, the Court will deny this motion without prejudice.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, doc. 34, will similarly be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion is written by another inmate who contends that Plaintiff is unable to effectively and efficiently write it on his own. (Doc. 34 at 1) This person states that he has been helping Plaintiff since August 2012, but that he will soon no longer be available; but, he requests that Plaintiff have counsel appointed because Plaintiff is mentally unable to help himself. (Id. at 2) A copy of a neuropsychological report that has not been admitted into evidence was attached. Finally, this person states that Plaintiff was unhappy with the on-site paralegal aervices and that Plaintiff will refuse those services indefinitely.

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Johnson v. U.S. 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. The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel because no exceptional circumstances exist in this case. The Court may revisit the issue, if appropriate, at a later date.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order re: Service, doc. 33, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, doc. 34 is DENIED.

__________________

Lawrence O. Anderson

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Jones v. Forbes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 24, 2012
No. CV-12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA) (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2012)
Case details for

Jones v. Forbes

Case Details

Full title:Theodore Jacob Jones, Plaintiff, v. CO II Forbes, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 24, 2012

Citations

No. CV-12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA) (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2012)