Monge v. Morales et al

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
Rosalio Monge, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Daniel Morales, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00092-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 10) and
Motion to Request Subpoenas (Doc. 11).
I. Motion to Appoint Counsel
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings
in forma pauperis, the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
is required only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances
requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the
plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
Id. “‘Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before
reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
1986)).
Case 4:25-cv-00092-RM Document 12 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Plaintiff does not address either factor in his Motion to Appoint Counsel. (See Doc.
10.) The Court has considered both factors and finds that there are no exceptional
circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff appears to be in
no different position than most pro se litigants with respect to his ability to articulate his
claims in light of the complexity of this case. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s likelihood of success
on the merits is unclear at this early stage of the case. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s
request for counsel without prejudice to refiling later in these proceedings.
II. Motion to Request Subpoenas
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue two subpoenas, one addressed to the Tucson Police
Department and the other addressed to Banner University Medical Center South. (Doc.
11.) Pursuant to General Order 18-19, a self-represented litigant seeking to serve a
subpoena must file a written motion that (1) explains why the litigant seeks the testimony
and documents at issue, and (2) sets forth the name and address of the witness to be
subpoenaed and the custodian and general nature of any documents requested. The litigant
must also attach a copy of the proposed subpoena to the Motion.
Plaintiff has not attached copies of his proposed subpoenas to his Motion.
Furthermore, the Motion is premature, as Defendants have not yet appeared in this action,
a scheduling order has not yet issued, and discovery has not yet commenced. Accordingly,
the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice and with leave to refile after the
commencement of discovery in this action. Any refiled motion must include copies of
Plaintiff’s proposed subpoenas. To assist Plaintiff in complying with General Order 18-
19, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff two blank subpoenas.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Case 4:25-cv-00092-RM Document 12 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 10) and Motion
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).
Dated this 8th day of December, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00092-RM Document 12 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3