Biagas v. Virga et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/06/16 granting 29 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff shall respond to the order to show cause within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel 30 is denied. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENT J. BIAGAS, SR., 12 No. 2:13-cv-2656-CMK-P Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 T. VIRGA, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 19 (Doc. 29) to file a response to the order to show cause issued November 3, 2015. Good cause 20 appearing therefor, the request will be granted. Plaintiff may file a response within 30 days of 21 the date of this order. 22 Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court 23 has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in 24 § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain 25 exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 1 1 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional 2 circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 3 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal 4 issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be 5 viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 6 In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional 7 circumstances. Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 8 articulate his claim. While the court finds his claims to be too vague and diverse as currently 9 plead in his complaint, it appears the deficiencies are not due to his inability to articulate his 10 claim, but rather stem from the lack of facts set forth in the complaint and his refusal to limit the 11 defendants raised to those related claims. His claims appear to range from Due Process, to the 12 medical treatment he is receiving in prison, to failure to protect, all of which are areas of the law 13 that are fairly well-settled and not overly complex, at least as related to the facts as alleged in this 14 case. At this early stage of the proceedings, especially given the order to show cause plaintiff is 15 required to respond to, the court cannot say that plaintiff is likely to prevail in the lawsuit. In 16 addition, the only grounds raised in plaintiff’s motion as the basis for appointing counsel stem 17 from his assertion that the evidence at issue involves confidential information. If plaintiff can 18 show sufficient cause why this action should not be dismissed, and is provided an opportunity to 19 file an amended complaint which survives screening, he will be able to renew his request for 20 appointment of counsel wherein he will be given the opportunity to demonstrate the need for any 21 confidential information. However, until such time, the undersigned does not find the required 22 circumstances for appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to the order to show 25 cause (Doc. 29) is granted; 26 /// 2 1 2 3 2. Plaintiff shall respond to the order to show cause within 30 days of the date of this order; and 3. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 30) is denied. 4 5 6 7 DATED: January 6, 2016 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?