Hansen v. Nkwocha
Filing
24
ORDER Denying 23 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Granting Motion for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/08/2017. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN HANSEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
1:15-cv-01665-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
P. NKWOCHA,
15
Defendant.
(ECF No. 23.)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
OBJECTIONS
16
17
18
19
20
21
Steven Hansen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
22
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
23
commencing this action on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with
24
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on February 29, 2016, against sole defendant
25
Custody Officer Philip Nkwocha (“Defendant”), on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the First
26
Amendment. (ECF No. 7.)
27
28
On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for
extension of time. (ECF No. 23.)
1
I.
2
Plaintiff requests court-appointed counsel to assist him with this litigation. Plaintiff
3
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
4
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff
5
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
6
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the
7
court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,
8
113 F.3d at 1525.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
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
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
12
of 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
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. On
15
April 25, 2017, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that summary
16
judgment be granted against Plaintiff in this case on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
17
his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 22.) Based on the findings and recommendations, the
18
court has determined that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, a review of
19
the record shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate
20
his claims pro se. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of
21
the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
22
II.
23
Plaintiff requests a ninety-day extension of time to file objections to the court’s findings
24
and recommendations, asserting that the mail is slow and does not allow him enough time to
25
respond. The court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file
26
objections.
27
///
28
///
EXTENSION OF TIME
1
III.
2
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1.
4
5
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice;
and
2.
6
Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in which
to file objections to the findings and recommendations issued on April 25, 2017.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 8, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?