Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 27.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 7, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 339 Words, 2,005 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43360/260.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Arizona ( 27.6 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Albert DeLeon, Plaintiff(s), v. Dora Schriro, et al, Defendant(s).

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CV-04-446-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Although captioned as a motion to clarify, Plaintiff has moved to stay this case until he can obtain counsel (Doc. #259). Plaintiff had counsel in this litigation. Plaintiff's counsel was forced to withdraw as a result of Plaintiff's actions. Therefore, the Court has no reason to believe Plaintiff will be able to obtain replacement counsel. Additionally, in the motion Plaintiff alludes to this Court appointing counsel for him. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, because of Plaintiff's interactions with former counsel, the Court has no reason to believe any counsel would accept a pro bono appointment to represent Plaintiff. Finally, the Court does not find the appointment of counsel to be justified. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, to the extent the motion to clarify could be construed as a motion to appoint counsel, that request is denied. In summary, the request to stay this case will be denied. The case was filed March 3, 2004. It is set for trial in December 2007. Plaintiff has a duty to promptly and diligently
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 260 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

prosecute his case even though he is incarcerated. Summary judgment was denied September 14, 2006. The parties have had ample time to prepare for trial. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to clarify (Doc. #259) is denied. DATED this 7th day of November, 2007.

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT

Document 260

Filed 11/07/2007

Page 2 of 2