Dews v. State Water System I.D. #1510802, et al.

Filing 19

ORDER Regarding Motions At Dockets 17 And 18 And Dismissing Complaint (Doc. 17 , 18 ), signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 6/19/2013. (Fahrney, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CLARENCE LEON DEWS,
Case No. 1:12-cv-01398-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 17 AND 18
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

vs.
STATE WATER SYSTEM, I.D.
#1510802, ET AL.,
Defendants.

Clarence Leon Dews, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. During initial screening, this Court dismissed
the Complaint with leave to amend as to the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison.1 In
response to that Order, at Docket No. 16 Dews requested a 60-day extension and, at the end
of the 60-days, that the matter be removed from the Court’s Calendar. Concurrently, at
Docket No. 18 Dews filed a motion requesting the appointment of an investigator at the
expense of the United States.

1

Dkt. 16.

DISMISSAL ORDER
Dews v. Chen 1:12-cv-01398-RRB – 1

I.

DISCUSSION
This Court dismissed the Complaint because it appeared on the face of the Complaint

that Dews had not properly exhausted his state-law administrative remedies. A prisoner
must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, not during the pendency of the
suit.2 Although this Court noted that it did not appear likely that Dews could have properly
exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the commencement of this suit, the Court
nonetheless provided Dews with the opportunity to plead compliance with the exhaustion
requirement. Dews’ motion at Docket No. 17 makes clear that Dews cannot truthfully plead
exhaustion. Nor does it appear that Dews is excused from exhausting his administrative
remedies under California law. Accordingly, any further extension of time to file an
amended complaint would be futile.
At Docket No. 17, although bearing the case number for this case, inexplicably the
caption names the People of the United States of America as the defendant. In that document
Dews requests the appointment of an investigator to assist him in the investigation of the
facts underlying his claims. Generally, a state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions
brought under § 1983.3

2

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (mandating that “[n]o action shall be brought . . . until [the
prisoner’s] administrative remedies . . . are exhausted.”); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199
(9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
3

See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that
there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).
DISMISSAL ORDER
Dews v. Chen 1:12-cv-01398-RRB – 2

However, a court may under exceptional circumstances appoint counsel for
indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining
whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider the likelihood
of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither
of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.4
The Ninth Circuit recently applied the same standards to the appointment of investigator in
a pair of unpublished decisions.5 Furthermore, there is no statutory right to the appointment
of a federal investigator in a civil action under § 1983.6
Although it appears that Dews has difficulty in articulating his claims, it is clear that
he has no likelihood of succeeding on his claims in this lawsuit. Accordingly, the request for
the appointment of an investigator must be denied.
II.

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time at

Docket No. 17 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of an
investigator at Docket No. 18 is DENIED.

4

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
5

Norwood v. Vance, 2013 WL 1738625 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2013) (unpublished);
Womack v. Bakewell, 2013 WL 601715 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished)
6

See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Dews v. Chen 1:12-cv-01398-RRB – 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint on file herein is DISMISSED in
its entirety without prejudice to refiling at such time as Dews has exhausted his available
state-law remedies.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2013.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL ORDER
Dews v. Chen 1:12-cv-01398-RRB – 4