Jones v. California Correctional Healthcare Services et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/18/18 DENYING 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel and GRANTING 26 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint. The clerk of the court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint form used in this district. (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 GARLAND A. JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-0738 WBS DB P v. ORDER CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. By order dated November 13, 2018, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened and 19 dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff was directed to file an amended 20 complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff has now filed a motion requesting an extension of time to 21 file a second amended complaint, the appointment of counsel, and a copy of the prisoner 22 complaint form used in this district. (ECF No. 26.) 23 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 26.) In support of his 24 motion he argues the court should appoint counsel because he has numerous legal actions pending 25 currently. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 26 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 27 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 28 //// 1 1 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 2 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 3 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 4 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 5 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 6 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 7 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 8 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 9 counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At 10 this point, the court cannot evaluate plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits because he has 11 not stated a cognizable claim. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion to appoint counsel 12 without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. 13 Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint pursuant to 14 the court’s order of November 14, 2018. Good cause appearing the court will grant plaintiff an 15 extension of time to file an amended complaint. 16 Plaintiff further requested that the court provide him with another complaint form. He 17 states there was not a complaint form included with the court’s November 13, 2018 order or if he 18 did receive the form he misplaced it. The court will provide an additional complaint form as a 19 one-time courtesy. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 26) is denied; 22 2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 26) is granted; and 23 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 24 complaint. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 2 form used in this district. 3 Dated: December 18, 2018 4 5 6 7 DLB:12 8 DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/jone0738.36+31 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?