Gaines v. Sherman et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Motions 10 , 12 , signed by District Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 5/10/16. (Gonzalez, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LESLIE J. GAINES, JR.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01533-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT
DOCKETS 10 and 12

vs.
STU SHERMAN (Warden), et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 10 Plaintiff Leslie J. Gaines, Jr., a California state prisoner appearing pro
se and in forma pauperis has moved to expedite briefing and hearing, and at DOCKET 12
objected to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Gaines’ motion to appoint counsel. The Court
will address those motions in inverse order.
OBJECTION TO DENIAL OF MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL [DOCKET 12]
The record reflects that this case was initially assigned to District Judge Lawrence
J. O’Neill and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The record further reflects that Gaines
declined to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.1 The Motion to Appoint
Counsel was referred to Magistrate Judge Seng for determination, who denied the motion.2
Gaines has objected to that Order.

1

Docket 6.

2

Docket 11.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 10 and 12
Gaines v. Sherman, 1:15-cv-01533-RRB – 1

The Court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge “where
it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.”3
Generally, a state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions.4 “However, a
court may under exceptional circumstances appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining whether exceptional circumstances
exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved. Neither of these considerations is dispositive, instead they must be viewed
together.”5
The Court, having reviewed the Order entered by the Magistrate Judge, has
determined that the decision of the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. The availability of pro bono counsel to represent indigent prisoners is
limited. While this Court is not unmindful of the value of the assistance of counsel, both to
Plaintiff and the Court itself, it does not appear at this stage of the proceedings that this is
a case in which it is necessary to appoint counsel.
Accordingly, the Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel at Docket 11 will
be affirmed.

3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

4

See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that there
is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).
5

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 10 and 12
Gaines v. Sherman, 1:15-cv-01533-RRB – 2

MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING
Although somewhat difficult to follow, Gaines appears to contend that the violations
that occurred at the place of his prior confinement will continue at the place of his current
confinement unless those defendants (presumably the defendants named in Gaines’
Complaint) are made aware of this case.6
As was explained in the First Informational Order, the extremely large number of
such cases before the Court notwithstanding, the Court screens pro se plaintiffs’ civil
complaints as expeditiously as possible, but delay is inevitable.7 The Court will screen the
Complaint in this case as expeditiously as may be permitted by the Court’s case load,
including matters having statutory priority and the processing of motions such as these.
Gaines has not provided any evidence that he is currently being threatened with serious
bodily harm or death. The Motion to Expedite Briefing at Docket 10 will be denied.
ORDER
The Motion to Expedite Briefing and Hearing at Docket 10 is hereby DENIED.
The Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Denial for Appointment of
Counsel at Docket 12 are DENIED, and the Order Denying Motion for Appointment of
Counsel at Docket 11 is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6

Gaines is currently incarcerated at the Kern Valley State Prison. The Complaint
arises out of his prior incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility–Corcoran.
7

Docket 3, p. 3.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 10 and 12
Gaines v. Sherman, 1:15-cv-01533-RRB – 3