Ronald Young v. Sisodia et al

Filing 58

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 53 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel and Motion to Stay Proceedings, and Granting Plaintiff's Request for Complete Court Docket Sheet signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 09/27/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD YOUNG, 12 Case No. 1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COMPLETE COURT DOCKET SHEET Defendants. (ECF NOS. 53, 54, & 57) 13 v. 14 C. SISODIA, 15 16 17 18 19 Ronald Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff 21 filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 53), a motion to stay the 22 proceedings (ECF No.54), and a request for a complete docket sheet (ECF No. 57, p. 2). 23 24 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel and motion to stay the proceedings, but will grant Plaintiff’s request for a complete docket sheet. 25 Among other reasons, Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he has limited 26 knowledge of the law, because he has been denied law library access, because he has been denied 27 copies, because he has been denied PLU status, because he is currently relying on another inmate 28 to prosecute this case but has only been granted access to that inmate twice in the last eight 1 1 months, because Plaintiff is incarcerated, and because this case will likely involve conflicting 2 testimony. 3 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 4 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 5 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 6 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 7 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 8 the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 9 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 10 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 11 Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 12 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 13 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 14 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 15 reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff 16 is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, Plaintiff does not appear to be prosecuting 17 this case. Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with his initial disclosures, failed to file a scheduling 18 conference statement, and at the initial scheduling conference told the Court that he was not prepared 19 to go forward with this case. (See ECF No. 51). Moreover, the Court explained on the record exactly 20 what was required from Plaintiff at the last hearing and answered any questions from Plaintiff. 21 22 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 23 As to Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings, Plaintiff asks that the proceedings be stayed 24 until after appellate review of the Court’s order dated May 24, 2017. (ECF No. 54). The Court has 25 already denied this request once. (ECF No. 43). Moreover, Plaintiff’s appeal has already been 26 dismissed. (ECF Nos. 44 & 49). Therefore, there is no reason to stay the proceedings. 27 Plaintiff also appears to be asking that the case be stayed pending resolution of his motion for 28 recusal of Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. However, Plaintiff has provided no reason why the case 2 1 should be stayed pending the motion for recusal. 2 proceedings. Accordingly, the Court will not stay the 3 Finally, Plaintiff asks for a complete copy of the docket sheet because he sent a writ of 4 mandate to the United States District Court on August 8, 2017, but has not heard anything regarding 5 this matter. (ECF No. 57, p. 2). Because the Court is unaware of what Plaintiff is referring to, the 6 Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for a docket sheet so that Plaintiff can confirm whether or not the 7 Court received Plaintiff’s filing. 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice; 9 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED; and 11 3. Plaintiff’s request for a complete copy of the docket sheet is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a complete copy of the docket sheet for this case. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 27, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?