Hunter v. Do-Williams, et al.
Filing
35
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/19/17 denying 28 Motion to Stay. Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel 29 , 34 are denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HAROLD HUNTER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-1971 KJN P
v.
ORDER
DOROTHY H. DO-WILLIAMS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
17
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No.
19
10.)
20
On November 1, 2016, the undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to either file an
21
amended complaint, or renew his request to voluntarily dismiss this action. (ECF No. 27.) On
22
December 5, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.) On December 5, 2016,
23
plaintiff also filed a motion to stay this action. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff requests that this action
24
be stayed because he is still exhausting administrative remedies. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges, in part,
25
that he still has administrative appeals pending that have yet to be answered. (Id.)
26
A prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies for constitutional claims prior to
27
asserting them in a civil rights complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d
28
1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). If a prisoner exhausts a claim after bringing it before the court, his
1
1
subsequent exhaustion cannot excuse his earlier failure to exhaust. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449
2
F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A prisoner] may initiate litigation in federal court only after
3
the administrative process ends and leaves his grievances unredressed. It would be inconsistent
4
with the objectives of the statute to let him submit his complaint any earlier than that.”) When the
5
district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies on a claim,
6
“the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d,
7
1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) overruled on other grounds by Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166
8
(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
9
In the motion to stay, plaintiff admits that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies
10
prior to bringing this action. Because plaintiff is required to exhaust administrative remedies
11
prior to bringing this civil rights action, the court has no authority to stay this action pending
12
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Accordingly, the motion to stay is denied. Plaintiff is
13
ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust
14
administrative remedies.
15
Plaintiff has also requested the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to
16
require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States
17
Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an
18
attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,
19
935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir.
20
1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider
21
plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his
22
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
23
965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel).
24
The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances
25
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
26
establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
27
28
Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to
meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of
2
1
counsel at this time.
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 28) is denied;
4
2. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this
5
action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing
6
this action;
7
3. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 29 and 34) are denied
8
without prejudice.
9
Dated: January 19, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
hunt1971.31kjn
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?