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. § 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