Nicklas v. Kokor et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 22 Request for Assistance signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/6/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVE ROCKY NICKLAS,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:18-cv-00119-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

Plaintiff,
v.

(ECF NO. 22)

W. KOKOR and MS. MATA,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Steve Rocky Nicklas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Court. In the letter, Plaintiff states

20

that he cannot read or write, and that he has a TABE score of 0. Plaintiff had been receiving

21

help from the Librarian at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, but he was transferred to a

22

different institution. “We” requested appointment of counsel, and in that motion Plaintiff

23

provided proof that he cannot read or write, but Plaintiff does not know what happened with

24

that request. While Plaintiff’s current institution of confinement has offered to provide an

25

officer to assist Plaintiff at the upcoming scheduling conference, that officer does not know the

26

law and cannot help Plaintiff. Plaintiff asks for help in going forward with his case.

27

To begin, the Court notes that it has not received a request from Plaintiff for

28

appointment of counsel. If Plaintiff wants to request appointment of counsel, he should refile
1

1

that motion.

2

As to Plaintiff’s request for help in going forward with this case, it will be denied.

3

After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his

4

claims. In fact, all of the claims Plaintiff alleged in his original complaint are proceeding (ECF

5

No. 12, p. 9). Additionally, it appears that Plaintiff is receiving assistance at his current

6

institution of confinement. Plaintiff’s letter was written on Plaintiff’s behalf by “LTA M.

7

Porter,” and Plaintiff has stated that the institution offered to have an officer assist Plaintiff at

8

the upcoming scheduling conference. Finally, while the Court will not provide Plaintiff with

9

legal advice, at the upcoming scheduling conference the Court will explain to Plaintiff how the

10
11
12

case will proceed and will do its best to answer any questions Plaintiff has about the process.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for help is DENIED. This denial
is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion for appointment of counsel.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 6, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2