Hoffman v. Quach, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/30/15 DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PIERRE L. HOFFMAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1009 DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

TRUONG QUACH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2015, the court ordered service of

19

plaintiff’s complaint on defendants Harper, Jennings, Jolley, Mallory, and Quach. (ECF No. 15.)

20

On October 5, 2015, defendants Harper, Jennings, and Mallory filed an answer in which they

21

included a demand for a jury trial. (ECF No. 17.) On October 14, 2015, the court issued a

22

discovery and scheduling order, setting a deadline of February 26, 2016 for completing discovery

23

(including the filing of any motions to compel discovery responses) and May 27, 2016 for all

24

other pretrial motions. (ECF No. 18.) On October 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a document entitled

25

“Plaintiff’s Opposition to Respondent[’s] Demand for Jury Trial Without Applying The Legal

26

Standards of the Federal Court.” (ECF No. 19.) This document reiterates many of the allegations

27

in plaintiff’s complaint, apparently in an attempt to rebut denials made, and affirmative defenses

28

raised, by defendants Harper, Jennings, and Mallory in their answer. Plaintiff concludes this
1

1

document by writing: “Therefore, plaintiff’s request from this court to deny defendants motion to

2

proceed with a jury trial without facing the Federal Court’s rules of Summary Judgment,

3

Interrogatories, Discoveries & Product of Documents, etc…” (sic) (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff has apparently misconstrued defendants Harper, Jennings, and Mallory’s answer.

4
5

An answer serves to put plaintiff and the court on notice as to the defendants’ response to his

6

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1) (“In responding to a pleading, a party must: (A) state in

7

short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and (B) admit or deny the

8

allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.”) The answer is not a motion that requires an

9

opposition from defendant. As set forth in the court’s October 14, 2015 discovery and scheduling

10

order, both plaintiff and defendants may now conduct discovery and bring motions to compel

11

discovery responses until February 26, 2016, and may bring other pre-trial motions (including

12

motions for summary judgment) until May 27, 2016. No jury trial will be held in the matter until

13

after those deadlines have passed and any outstanding motions have been decided by the court.

14

Plaintiff has also requested appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20.) The United States

15

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

16

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

17

certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of

18

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

19

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

20

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

21

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

22

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

23

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

24

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

25

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

26

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 30, 2015 motion for the

2

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is denied.

3

Dated: October 30, 2015

4
5
6

DAD:10
hoff1009.31+

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3