Morris v. Daly et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/19/15. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment on or before 7/15/15; defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 14 days thereafter. (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/22/2015 (Plummer, M).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEON E. MORRIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:12-cv-2845 JAM AC P
v.
ORDER
DALY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a prisoner at California State Prison Sacramento (CSP-SAC), who proceeds pro
17
18
se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action against defendants Daly, Donahoo and
19
Prereira, all CSP-SAC Appeals Coordinators. Plaintiff claims that defendants retaliated against
20
him for filing administrative grievances and initiating litigation in violation of the First
21
Amendment. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 6, 2015. ECF No. 32.
22
Because plaintiff had “several lawsuits pending . . . and [was] being overwhelmed with
23
paperwork,” ECF No. 36 at 1-2, he requested a 120-day extension of time within which to file his
24
opposition to the motion. The court authorized an extension of 60 days after service of the
25
court’s order, ECF No. 37, rendering plaintiff’s opposition due on or before June 29, 2015, by
26
application of the mailbox rule.1
27
28
1
Under the prison mailbox rule, a document is deemed served or filed on the date a prisoner
(continued…)
1
1
Presently pending is plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos.
2
16, 17. Plaintiff avers, among other things, that he is “absolutely lost” in this litigation, ECF No.
3
38 at 9, due to his physical limitations (including cervical spondylosis) and associated pain; his
4
mental disabilities (including schizoaffective disorder and depression); and the side effects of his
5
pain and psychotropic medications. Plaintiff states that he is indigent and unlearned in the law,
6
and has previously relied on other inmates to prepare his court filings. Plaintiff has submitted an
7
affidavit from another prisoner who states that he has assisted plaintiff with his civil court
8
proceedings since 2013, but is no longer available because he is now tutoring GED students and
9
will soon be transferred to another institution. See ECF No. 38 at 11-2.
10
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require
11
counsel to represent indigent prisoners in Section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.
12
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may
13
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,
14
935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir.
15
1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider
16
plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his
17
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
18
965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986);
19
Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The burden of demonstrating exceptional
20
circumstances is on the plaintiff. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Circumstances common to most
21
prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish the
22
requisite exceptional circumstances.
23
Several factors militate against appointment of counsel in this case. Plaintiff’s indigence
24
and lack of legal training are circumstances common to most prisoners. Also, many prisoners
25
struggle with physical and mental disabilities and the side effects to medications. Significantly,
26
27
signs the document and gives it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule); Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.
2010) (applying the mailbox rule to both state and federal filings by incarcerated inmates).
28
2
1
plaintiff is a frequent litigator in this court; he has filed more than a dozen cases since 2010, and
2
currently has six open cases.2 Plaintiff’s numerous filings reduce the relative significance of each
3
case in the request for counsel context; the court cannot feasibly appoint counsel in each of
4
plaintiff’s cases.
5
Additionally, the legal issues in this action are not particularly complex, and plaintiff is
6
well positioned to articulate his factual arguments pro se. The pending motion for summary
7
judgment examines twenty of plaintiff’s administrative appeals which were reviewed by one or
8
more of the defendants. See ECF No. 32-2 at 2. Defendants contend that their challenged
9
conduct was not retaliatory but that they properly screened out or canceled each appeal according
10
to applicable rules and regulations, and that plaintiff failed to respond with a properly submitted
11
and corrected appeal. Any opposition to defendants’ motion must rebut defendants’ specific
12
factual allegations concerning each appeal. This task is more appropriately retained by plaintiff,
13
who submitted each appeal, than by appointed legal counsel. Moreover, because prisoners are not
14
entitled to prison grievance procedures as a matter of course, a claim that prison officials failed to
15
properly process or resolve a particular grievance is generally not cognizable,3 indicating that
16
plaintiff may not be able to succeed on the merits of his claims. Because only a limited number
17
of lawyers are available for voluntary appointment, their assignments must be limited to cases
18
which turn on complex legal issues and demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
19
For these several reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has not met his burden of
20
demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in the instant case at
21
the present time. However, in light of the court’s decision, plaintiff will be accorded additional
22
time to file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment.
23
24
25
26
27
2
This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See
United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631
F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts
that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned).
3
See e.g. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d
494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993).
28
3
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 38, is denied without
3
prejudice; and
4
2. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition to the pending motion for summary
5
judgment on or before July 15, 2015; defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 14
6
days thereafter.
7
SO ORDERED.
8
DATED: June 19, 2015
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?