Shepherd v. California Forensic Medical Group et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/20/17 DENYING 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Within 14 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a signed request for a medical expert witness for trial. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMERON SHEPARD, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-1894 WBS KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 I. Motion for Appointment of Expert 22 Plaintiff appears to request a court-appointed neutral expert under Rule 706 of the Federal 23 Rules of Evidence. However, plaintiff did not sign his request. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure require all litigants to sign filings submitted to the court. Id. Plaintiff is granted 25 fourteen days in which to re-file the motion bearing his signature. 26 II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 27 28 Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 1 1 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 2 attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 3 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 4 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 5 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 6 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 7 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 8 The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 9 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 10 establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 11 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 12 meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 13 counsel at this time. 14 Finally, plaintiff mentions a necessity to locate certain witnesses. Plaintiff claims he 15 needs to call a witness “Lee John,” born on August 21, 1979, and believes he is now in state 16 prison. (ECF No. 48 at 2.) However, the CDCR inmate locator does not reflect that a “Lee John” 17 is presently incarcerated in the state of California. http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/default.aspx 18 (accessed December 18, 2017). Searches for an inmate “John Lee” revealed eight different 19 inmates by the name “John Lee,” but none of them were born on August 21, 1979. 20 Plaintiff also claims he needs to call two county jail officers, Officer Hemsley and Officer 21 Willis, but cannot contact them to obtain affidavits. Because these officers are not incarcerated, 22 plaintiff is not required to file an affidavit, but may subpoena them to appear at trial, so long as 23 plaintiff follows the procedure set forth in the scheduling order, including the tender of 24 appropriate witness fees. (ECF No. 44 at 4.) 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. 27 28 Within fourteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff’s shall file a signed request for a medical expert witness for trial (ECF No. 49); and //// 2 1 2 2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 48) is denied. Dated: December 20, 2017 3 4 5 6 /shep1894.31+ 7 8 9 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?