Oliver v. International Hotel Group, 9:14-cv-00084

Plaintiff Clifton Ray Oliver, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his February 2, 2012 arrest following a Missoula hotel incident; original criminal charge (promoting prostitution) was dismissed after Oliver pled guilty to witness tampering in 2014.
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch issued an Order, Findings, and Recommendation resolving multiple pretrial motions: granting extensions and supplementation requests but denying motions for appointment of counsel, subpoenas (mostly), transfer/copy of exhibits, and appointment of an independent expert; he recommended denial of a motion to add defendants/claims.
Oliver objected only to the magistrate judge’s denials of (1) appointment of counsel and (2) subpoena duces tecum (and moved for reconsideration); he did not object to the recommendation denying leave to amend to add defendants/claims.
District Court reviewed the magistrate judge’s order for clear error (where objections exist) and adopted the findings and recommendation in full.
The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying appointed counsel: Oliver showed no likelihood of success on the merits and demonstrated adequate pro se briefing ability.
On subpoenas, the magistrate judge denied the requested Google subpoena because the relevant original text string had been deleted; later the magistrate authorized service of a subpoena for Oliver’s linked e‑mail account, rendering some objections moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appointment of counsel	Oliver asserted need for counsel and asked reconsideration	Defendants opposed; no exceptional circumstances	Denied — no exceptional circumstances; Oliver can articulate claims and no likelihood of success shown
Subpoena duces tecum (Google/GoogleVoice)	Sought Google/GoogleVoice records and related data from Jan 20–Feb 4, 2012	Defendants argued requested data irrelevant or deleted	Mostly denied — magistrate found original text string deleted; later authorized subpoena for linked e‑mail, making some objections moot
Motion to amend/add defendants and counts (Monell claim vs. City)	Sought to add City of Missoula and additional counts, alleging customs/policies caused violation	Defendants opposed; lack of factual basis tying conduct to municipal policy	Denied — amendment would be futile; no plausible Monell factual allegations
Reconsideration of magistrate rulings	Asked court to reconsider denials (counsel, subpoenas)	Defendants opposed reconsideration	Denied — district court found no clear error in magistrate’s rulings; some subpoena issues rendered moot by later authorization

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil rights cases — exceptional circumstances required)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district court review of unobjected-to magistrate findings not de novo)
Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pens. Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (1993) (clear error standard described — reversal only for definite and firm conviction of mistake)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing constitutional violation)
Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend may be denied as futile)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard — plausible claim requirement)