Heyer v. Krueger et al
Filing
13
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 9 ; ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification 10 ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery 12 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/12/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD D. HEYER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
ANGELA KRUEGER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
Case No. 1:13-cv-01297 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(Document 9)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
(Document 10)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY
(Document 12)
16
17
18
Plaintiff Richard D. Heyer (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
20
forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his compliant on
21
August 5, 2013, and the action was transferred to this Court on August 13, 2013. Plaintiff’s
22
complaint is awaiting screening.
23
A.
24
Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.
25
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th
26
Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
27
1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;
28
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the
1
1
Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate
2
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970
3
(citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is
4
dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation
5
marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.
6
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it
7
is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which,
8
if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar
9
cases almost daily. Moreover, at this time, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to articulate
10
his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.
11
B.
Motion for Clarification
Plaintiff’s action was transferred to this Court on August 12, 2013, and assigned case number
12
13
1:13-cv-1297 DLB (PC). Plaintiff should direct his future filings to this Court and use this case
14
number.
15
C.
16
17
Motion for Discovery
On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve a request for production of
documents. It appears that Plaintiff is seeking a copy of his Central File.
First, discovery has not yet opened in this action. If the Court screens Plaintiff’s complaint
18
19
and finds that it states cognizable claims, the Court will issue an order opening discovery after
20
Defendants file an answer.
21
Second, Plaintiff is entitled to review his Central File via an Olsen review. An institutional
22
procedure exists for inmates to review their file and he does not need an order from this Court.
23
Larson v. Neubarth, 2007 WL 137151, *1 (E.D.Cal. Jan.17, 2007).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
Dated:
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
September 12, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D C_Si gnat ue EN :
EA
r- D
2
1
3b142a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?