United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge.
an inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Correction, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, United
States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale previously entered an
Initial Review Order, allowing Plaintiff to proceed on his
claims that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to
petition the government for redress, by refusing to process
Plaintiff's jail grievances because they contained
disrespectful language. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff's claims arose
when he was incarcerated at the Ada County Jail, and
Defendants are employees of Ada County.
has now filed several motions: (1) a Motion to Reconsider the
Initial Review Order, in which he asks the Court to analyze
Plaintiff's free speech claims against Defendants; (2) a
Motion to Stay Pleadings; and (3) a Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel. Dkts. 17, 22, 27. Also pending are
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and Motion to
Extend Discovery, though those motions are not yet ripe. Dkt.
fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and
legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and
record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court enters the
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
seeks the appointment of counsel. Judge Dale denied
Plaintiff's previous request for counsel because, with
only the bare allegations of the Complaint, the Court did
“not have a sufficient basis upon which to assess the
merits, if any, at this point in the proceeding” and
because Plaintiff had articulated his claims sufficiently.
Dkt. 10 at 11. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,
1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (factors in the appointment of counsel
analysis are the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the
merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his
claims pro se in light of the complexity of legal issues
Court now has more than merely the Complaint to determine
whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and
concludes that Plaintiff has some likelihood of success on
his claims. However, to date, Plaintiff has continued to
represent himself quite competently, including by making
legal arguments and by citing legal authority. Thus, the
Court will exercise its discretion to deny Plaintiff's
Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Motion to Stay Pleadings
Motion to Stay Pleadings, Plaintiff asks that the Court stay
the deadlines in this case until a motion in Plaintiff's
most recent case-a First Amendment case against employees of
the Idaho Department of Correction-is decided. Dkt. 22 at 1;
Dkt. 19 at 1 (requesting withdrawal of Plaintiff's motion
for a temporary restraining order because “[t]he
Defendants in this suit are not the party for whome [sic]
that motion sought relief against. Williams has just filed
suit against the defendants/party that the TRO sought to
compel, and has filed a new TRO/PI with that suit.”).
See Williams v. Stewart, Case No. 1:18-cv-00028-BLW.
Plaintiff also claims that, at ISCC-the prison at which
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated-he does not have adequate
access to legal materials to pursue this case. Dkt. 22 at 1.
Court sees no reason to delay the progress of this case
pending the resolution of a motion in Plaintiff's new
case. Plaintiff has not yet been authorized to proceed in
that new case, and further delay in this case is not
the Constitution does not require that inmates “be able
to conduct generalized research, ” nor does it
“guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform
themselves into litigating engines.” Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 255, 360 (1996). Rather, prisons
must provide only those resources necessary to allow inmates
“to present their grievances to the courts-a more
limited capability that can be produced by a much more
limited degree of legal assistance.” Id. at
has not shown that the resources available at ISCC are
insufficient to permit him to adequately present his claims
to this Court. As the Court has already explained with
respect to Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel,
Plaintiff has been able to represent himself admirably
throughout this litigation. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion
to Stay Pleadings will be denied.
Motion for Reconsideration of the Initial Review Order and
Review of Complaint
Initial Review Order, Judge Dale analyzed Plaintiff's
Complaint and determined that Plaintiff could proceed on his
petition-for-redress claims, but not on his retaliation
claims. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff now contends that Judge Dale did
not analyze his free speech claims and asks that this Court
do so. Dkt. 17 at 2. Plaintiff ...