Meador v. Aye et al

Filing 103

ORDER DENYING 102 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Sixty (60) Days to File a Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion; ORDER Requiring Response From the Office of the Attorney Genera l Regarding Access to the Law Library Within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/16/2016. Clerk to serve this order and a copy of Plainiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

GORDON DALE MEADOR,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
K. AYE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

1:14-cv-00006-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL, GRANTING PLAINTIFF 60 DAYS
TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AND
REQUIRING RESPONSE FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REGARDING ACCESS TO THE LAW
LIBRARY WITHIN 14 DAYS
(ECF NO. 102)

18
19
20
21

Gordon Meador (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

22

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

23

request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 102). Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint

24

limited purpose counsel to draft and file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

25

judgment.

26

According to Plaintiff, he needs counsel appointed because this case is complex, because

27

Plaintiff is in Administrative Segregation and has no law library access, because Plaintiff has

28

limited knowledge of the law, because Plaintiff has a 2.9 GPL, and because Plaintiff has been
1

1

unable to obtain declarations from his witnesses.

2

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

3

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

4

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28

5

U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

6
7
8

490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,
113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

9

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
10
11
12

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

In determining whether

As Plaintiff points out, the Court has already attempted to find pro bono counsel for Plaintiff.
The Court was able to locate pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of drafting the First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 14)). But it has been unable to find any counsel willing to take on the rest of
Plaintiff’s case pro bono. The Court cannot require any attorney to represent Plaintiff pro bono.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel will be denied. If this case
proceeds past summary judgment to trial, Plaintiff can ask for pro bono counsel again for purposes of
trial.

20

The Court notes that Plaintiff does not need to use any special legal words in responding to

21

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The important thing is for Plaintiff to include any

22

evidence that supports his claims, including his own sworn statements.

23

That said, given the complexity of the case, and as it appears that Plaintiff is currently unable

24

to prosecute his case due to the conditions of his incarceration, the Court will grant Plaintiff 60 days

25

from the date of service of this order to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

26

Plaintiff also claims that he has no access to the law library right now. (ECF No. 102, at p. 1)

27

This concerns the Court. Accordingly, the Court will require a response from the Office of the

28
2

1

Attorney General regarding Plaintiff’s alleged lack of law library access.

2

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED;

4

2. Plaintiff has 60 days from the date of service of this order to respond to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment;

5
6

3. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order the Office of the

7

Attorney General shall address the allegations in Plaintiff’s motion regarding lack

8

of law library access and his inability to obtain declarations from witnesses; and

9

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica

10

Anderson with a copy of this order and a copy of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

11

pro bono counsel (ECF No. 102).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:

December 16, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3