Foss v. Rowen
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/13/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File Sur-reply (ECF No. 28 ) is GRANTED. Within 20 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file any sur-reply. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 26 ) is DENIED. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAYMOND C. FOSS,
12
No. 2:15-cv-0686 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
TODD ROWEN,
15
ORDER
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 22, 2016, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint
19
on the grounds that it is untimely. Plaintiff opposes the motion. In his reply, defendant raises
20
arguments not raised in his opening brief on the motion. Plaintiff now seeks an opportunity to
21
file a sur-reply. In addition, plaintiff renews the request for appointment of counsel made along
22
with his opposition to the motion to dismiss.
23
24
Motion to File Sur-reply
The filing of a sur-reply is not authorized by the Local Rules or by the Federal Rules of
25
Civil Procedure. However, a sur-reply may be appropriate where the moving party has raised
26
new arguments in its reply brief. See Hartline v. National Univ., No. 2:14-cv-0635 KJM AC PS,
27
2015 WL 351813, *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) (citing Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, *11
28
(E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005)). In the present case, defendant states in his reply brief that he did not
1
1
construe the claim in plaintiff’s petition as one based on a warrantless arrest. (Def.’s Reply (ECF
2
No. 27) at 2.) By defendant’s own admission, defendant raises new legal arguments in the reply
3
brief. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to permit plaintiff to file a sur-reply.
4
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
5
Plaintiff provides no basis for his request for an attorney besides the fact that he also seeks
6
a hearing on defendant’s motion. (See Pl.’s Oppo. (ECF No. 26) at 5; Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File
7
Sur-reply (ECF No. 28) at 3.) The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts
8
lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v.
9
United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the
10
district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
11
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332,
12
1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
13
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s
14
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
15
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
16
1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
17
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
18
establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of
19
counsel. In addition, the court does not typically hold hearings on motions filed in actions in
20
which one party is incarcerated. E.D. Cal. R. 230(l). The court does not find a hearing warranted
21
on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Further, the court does not find the required exceptional
22
circumstances justify the court seeking the assistance of counsel for plaintiff in this case.
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
24
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Sur-reply (ECF No. 28) is granted.
25
Within twenty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file any sur-reply.
26
////
27
////
28
////
2
1
2
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 26) is denied.
Dated: December 13, 2016
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/foss0686.31
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?