Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Exceed the Page Limitation and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/19/14. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KING MWASI,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-AWI-JLT (PC)
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMITATION AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al
(Doc. 30)
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on
19
April 24, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The action was transferred to this Court on May 10, 2013. (Doc. 6.)
20
Plaintiff was ordered to file a complaint, with which he complied. (Docs. 9, 14.) The Complaint
21
was screened and found to be devoid of any cognizable claims against any of the named
22
Defendants. (Doc. 17.) In the original screening order, Plaintiff was given various pleading
23
standards applicable to the claims he was attempting to state and admonished that an amended
24
complaint must neither exceed 20 pages in length, nor include claims prior to April 24, 2009 as
25
they were past the applicable statute of limitations. (Id.)
26
27
28
Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on November 14, 2013. (Doc. 24.) However,
despite the admonishments in the original screening order, the First Amended Complaint
contained factual allegations as far back as December of 2000, doubled the length of allegations,
and more than tripled the number of persons named as Defendants without regard for or any
1
1
discernable attempt to comply with the original screening order. (Id.) It was unclear whether
2
Plaintiff was unwilling or unable to follow the instructions in the original screening order.
3
However, in an effort to give Plaintiff every leniency due to a pro se inmate, he was granted one
4
final opportunity to amend and once again directed not to exceed 20 pages in length, nor include
5
claims prior to April 24, 2009. (Doc. 26.)
6
On June 2, 2014, along with the Second Amended Complaint ("2nd AC"), Plaintiff filed a
7
motion to exceed the page limit in the 2nd AC by one page, to toll time as to claims prior to April
8
24, 2009 so that they are not barred by the statute of limitations, to appoint counsel, and to
9
identify the reviewers of his medical grievances as Defendants in the 2nd AC. (Doc. 30.) One
10
page over the limitation imposed in the prior screening order will be allowed this one time.1 To
11
the extent that Plaintiff's motion seeks to be allowed to exceed the limit of 20 pages in the 2nd
12
AC by one page it is granted.
13
To the extent Plaintiff's motion seeks to have counsel appointed, it is denied without
14
prejudice as Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
15
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
16
represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
17
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
18
circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
19
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Yet without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court seeks
20
21
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
22
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
23
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
24
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
25
26
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
27
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
28
1
Plaintiff is cautioned not to run over limitations imposed by this Court just because it is being allowed this one
time.
2
1
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make
2
a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and, based on a review of the
3
record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
4
Id.
5
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion, filed June 2, 2014 (Doc.
6
30) to exceed the page limit is GRANTED, but his request for the appointment of counsel is
7
DENIED, without prejudice.2
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated:
June 19, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The other issues raised in Plaintiff's motion (tolling of the statute of limitations and the cognizability of Plaintiff's
claims in the 2nd AC against the reviewers of his medical grievances) will be addressed in the order screening the
2nd AC which will issue shortly if not concurrently herewith.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?