Caruso v. Johnson et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/3/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11

Case No. 1:15-cv-00780-AWI-EPG (PC)

GINA CARUSO,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 48)

Defendants.

12
13
14

Gina Caruso (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

15

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed

16

a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 48).

17

This is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of bro bono counsel in less than two

18

weeks. While Plaintiff was advised that she could renew the motion, she was also advised that it

19

was to be “at a later stage of the proceedings.” (ECF No. 47, p. 2).

20

Plaintiff did submit medical records along with the current motion (ECF No. 49), which

21

she alleges show that her case has merit. However, the medical records are not enough to change

22

the Court’s analysis at this time. The medical records appear to relate to the existence of her back

23

problems, but not to the cause of her back problems. Accordingly, the reasons given for denying

24

appointment of counsel still apply.

25

Plaintiff’s motion also argues that Plaintiff will not be able to access certain documents

26

for security reasons. However, Defendants may not withhold documents solely on the basis that

27

Plaintiff lacks an attorney. If Plaintiff needs documents that she believes are relevant to this case,

28

she may request such documents as discussed during the initial scheduling conference, through
1

1

Defendants or through a third party subpoena. If Defendants deny Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff

2

may file a motion to compel. While concerns about security may affect the documents provided

3

to Plaintiff, there are methods to ensure that Plaintiff receives documents and information truly

4

relevant to her case.

5

The Court notes that it also ordered Defendants to produce many relevant documents

6

through its Discovery Order, ECF No. 44, even without any further request by Plaintiff. If

7

Defendants fail to comply with that order, or withhold documents as privileged, Plaintiff may file

8

a motion to compel with the Court.

9
10

Therefore, based on the foregoing and the reasons laid out in the Court’s prior order (ECF
No. 47), Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel will be denied.1

11

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is

12

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that she is not precluded from renewing the motion

13

for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 3, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The copy of the order denying Plaintiff’s previous motion to appoint pro bono counsel
that was served on Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. That order was recently re-served on
Plaintiff.

28
2