Rosalio Monge, Jr. v. Daniel Morales, et al.

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Rosalio Monge, Jr., No. CV-25-00092-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Daniel Morales, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 10) and 16 Motion to Request Subpoenas (Doc. 11). 17 I. Motion to Appoint Counsel 18 There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 19 Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings 20 in forma pauperis, the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 21 afford one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1) 22 is required only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 23 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances 24 requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 25 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. [26] Id. “‘Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 27 reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 28 1986)). 1 Plaintiff does not address either factor in his Motion to Appoint Counsel. (See Doc. 2 10.) The Court has considered both factors and finds that there are no exceptional 3 circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff appears to be in 4 no different position than most pro se litigants with respect to his ability to articulate his 5 claims in light of the complexity of this case. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s likelihood of success 6 on the merits is unclear at this early stage of the case. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s 7 request for counsel without prejudice to refiling later in these proceedings. 8 II. Motion to Request Subpoenas 9 Plaintiff asks the Court to issue two subpoenas, one addressed to the Tucson Police 10 Department and the other addressed to Banner University Medical Center South. (Doc. 11 11.) Pursuant to General Order 18-19, a self-represented litigant seeking to serve a 12 subpoena must file a written motion that (1) explains why the litigant seeks the testimony 13 and documents at issue, and (2) sets forth the name and address of the witness to be 14 subpoenaed and the custodian and general nature of any documents requested. The litigant 15 must also attach a copy of the proposed subpoena to the Motion. 16 Plaintiff has not attached copies of his proposed subpoenas to his Motion. 17 Furthermore, the Motion is premature, as Defendants have not yet appeared in this action, 18 a scheduling order has not yet issued, and discovery has not yet commenced. Accordingly, 19 the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice and with leave to refile after the 20 commencement of discovery in this action. Any refiled motion must include copies of 21 Plaintiff’s proposed subpoenas. To assist Plaintiff in complying with General Order 1822 19, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff two blank subpoenas. 23 . . . . 24 . . . . 25 . . . . 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 10) and Motion 2|| to Request Subpoenas (Doc. 11) are denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is || directed to mail Plaintiff two blank subpoenas to produce documents (Form AO 88B). 4 Dated this 8th day of December, 2025. [5] ‘ Honorable Rostsiary Mgtquez 9 United States District □□□□□ [28] -3-