Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lee Michael Beitman, No. CV-17-08229-PCT-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 S. Herrick, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 233) of 16 this Court’s January 19, 2022 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of 17 Counsel (Doc. 223). 18 On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 19 221). On January 19, 2022, the Court denied that motion, finding no exceptional 20 circumstances warranted appointment of counsel given Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his 21 claims pro se and a low likelihood of success on the merits of the current case based on the 22 previous jury verdict in a case that largely addressed the same issues. (Doc. 223 at 2). On 23 January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. 24 (Doc. 232). 25 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g)(1): The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of 26 an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of 27 new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such 28 motion shall point out with specificity the matters that the 1 movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention 2 for the first time and the reasons they were not presented 3 earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s order. No motion for reconsideration of an Order may 4 repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in 5 support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds 6 for denial of the motion. 7 First, Plaintiff argues that he “lacks the skill set necessary to” prepare for the final 8 pretrial conference and to represent himself effectively at trial. (Doc. 233 at 2). However, 9 Local Rule 7.2(g)(1) requires that motions for reconsideration do not “repeat any oral or 10 written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that 11 resulted in the Order.” Plaintiff raised these concerns in his original motion and the Court 12 addressed them in its prior Order. (See Doc. 223 at 2). Moreover, Plaintiff’s simultaneously 13 filed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 236) suggests that he can articulate his claims and his 14 evidentiary objections without the assistance of counsel. Additionally, although Plaintiff 15 seeks counsel to help him file his motions in limine, the deadline to file any such motions 16 was on January 25, 2022. 17 Next, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in finding the previous jury verdict 18 indicative of his likelihood of success in this case because he contends that the unfavorable 19 verdict resulted from both the Court’s “abuse of discretion and judicial error” and his 20 previous counsel’s ineffective performance. (Id. at 2–3). Plaintiff proffers a variety of 21 examples of the Court’s and his prior counsel’s failings that are unrelated to the present 22 request for counsel. However, as discussed in the prior Order, the Court finds a low 23 likelihood of success on the merits in this case because Defendant Herrick testified in the 24 prior case regarding her treatment of Plaintiff’s facial injuries, which is central to the issues 25 underpinning both cases. (Doc. 223 at 2). Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant Herrick’s 26 testimony was not central to the issues in the previous case nor that the alleged errors of 27 this Court or prior counsel resulted in the improper admission of that testimony. See 28 Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 1 2003) (“[R]econsideration [may not] be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already 2 thought.”) (citations omitted). 3 Plaintiff further contends that the Court’s prior Order both suggests that the Court 4 harbors prejudice against him for appealing the unfavorable jury verdict and disincentives 5 Defendants to offer him a favorable pretrial settlement. (Id. at 5–6). Plaintiff contends that 6 the Court’s alleged prejudice constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” that requires the 7 Court to appoint him counsel. (Id. at 7). However, as explained in the Court’s prior Order, 8 a finding of exceptional circumstances only “requires an evaluation of both the likelihood 9 of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in 10 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” (Doc. 223 at 2) (citing Wilborn v. 11 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotations omitted)). The Court does not find 12 that Plaintiff’s arguments of this Court’s alleged prejudice against him to affect the 13 likelihood of success on the merits of his claims before a jury. Nor does the Court find the 14 same to affect his ability to articulate his claims pro se. 1 15 Finally, Plaintiff argues that under Bounds v. Smith, his lack of access to a law 16 library at his prison facility violates his constitutional right to access the courts. (Id. at 6) 17 (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)). In Bounds v. Smith, the Supreme Court held 18 “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to 19 assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing 20 prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the 21 law.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828. However, in Lewis v. Casey, the Supreme Court limited its 22 earlier decision in Bounds and reversed a Ninth Circuit decision upholding a District of 23 Arizona determination that Arizona Department of Corrections violated prisoners’ right to 24 access the courts by failing to update legal materials or provide access to the law library. 25 518 U.S. 343, 346–347 (1996). The Lewis Court clarified that Bounds did not establish “the 26 right to a law library or to legal assistance,” and instead reiterated the well-known right to 27 1 To the extent Plaintiff is asking this Court to appoint him counsel based on various alleged 28 errors of the Court and his previous counsel in his prior case, those are issues squarely within the Ninth Circuit’s review on appeal and not for this Court to weigh in on. || court access. Jd. at 350. The Lewis Court went on: In the cases to which Bounds traced its roots, we had protected that right by prohibiting state prison officials from actively 3 interfering with inmates’ attempts to prepare legal documents A or file them, and by requiring state courts to waive filing fees or transcript fees for indigent inmates. Bounds focused on the 5 same entitlement of access to the courts. Although it affirmed 6 a court order requiring North Carolina to make law library facilities available to inmates, it stressed that that was merely 7 one constitutionally acceptable method to assure meaningful access to the courts, and that our decision here ... does not 8 foreclose alternative means to achieve that goal. In other 9 words, prison law libraries and legal assistance programs are not ends in themselves, but only the means for ensuring a 10 reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations 11 of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts. || Jd. at 350-51 (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that the prison officials are Preventing him from his right to access the courts or from presenting his legal claims. 14 Plaintiff's ability to access the court is evidenced by the various articulate filings before 15|| the Court in this case. Thus, the Court does not find Plaintiff's argument persuasive enough 16|| to reconsider its Order denying Plaintiff counsel on this basis. 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 233) is denied. 19 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2022. 20 ' 21 : James A. Teilborg 22 Senior United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-