Bobier v. Unknown
Filing
18
ORDER DENYING 17 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, DISCHARGING 16 Order to Show Cause, and GRANTING Request for an Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint; Amended Complaint Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/3/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (PC)
JON C. BOBIER,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
15
16
UNKNOWN,
(ECF Nos. 16, 17)
Defendant.
17
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff Jon C. Bobier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 3, 2012. (ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of
counsel and requesting that the Court extend his time to file an amended complaint.
I.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United
1
1
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
2
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
3
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
4
However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
5
Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
6
determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
7
both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
8
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal
9
quotation marks and citations omitted).
10
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional
11
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
12
he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
13
not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early
14
stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to
15
succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does
16
not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
17
18
DENIED, without prejudice.
19
II.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
20
On October 29, 2013, the Court filed an order striking Plaintiff’s unsigned and
21
uncaptioned Complaint and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty
22
days. (ECF No. 15.) That deadline passed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint
23
or requesting an extension of time to do so. The Court on December 13, 2013, ordered
24
Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply
25
with a court order. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has since requested an extension of time in
26
which to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.)
27
///
28
///
2
1
Accordingly, the order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, filed December 13, 2013,
2
is hereby DISCHARGED and Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service
3
of this order in which to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
4
complaint, this action will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court
5
order and failure to prosecute.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 3, 2014
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael J. Seng
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?