Fields v. Castrillo

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/07/18 DENYING 21 plaintiff's motion concerning discovery and setting a settlement conference; and DENYING 22 plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel; DENYING 24 , 25 plaintiff's requests for the court's assistance concerning access to the prison law library, legal copies and writing materials. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CARLTON FIELDS,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1068 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

E.F. CASTRILLO,
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, presently incarcerated at California State Prison Sacramento

17

(CSP-SAC), who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant answered the complaint on December 20, 2017, and the court

19

issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on December 28, 2017. This order addresses several

20

documents since filed by plaintiff.

21

First, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to commence discovery, schedule a status

22

conference, and schedule a settlement conference. See ECF No. 21. The motion will be denied

23

for the following reasons. The motion was signed by plaintiff on December 27, 2017, and thus

24

prepared prior to plaintiff’s receipt of the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order; it is moot as to

25

plaintiff’s request to commence discovery and to set deadlines for discovery and dispositive

26

motions. Moreover, the court does not routinely set status conferences in prisoner cases. Should

27

plaintiff wish to pursue settlement in this action, he should so inform defendant’s counsel. If both

28

parties agree that a settlement conference may be helpful in resolving this case, they should file a
1

1

joint stipulation requesting that the court schedule such conference.

2

Second, plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 22; see also ECF No.

3

24 at 2; ECF No. 25 at 1. Plaintiff is informed that district courts do not have authority to require

4

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in Section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.

5

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Only in certain exceptional circumstances may a district court

6

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,

7

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir.

8

1990). Exceptional circumstances include plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light

9

of the complexity of the legal issues involved and plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of

10

his claims. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look,

11

718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of

12

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish the requisite exceptional

13

circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. The burden of demonstrating exceptional

14

circumstances is on plaintiff. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

15

In the present case, the court does not find exceptional circumstances supporting

16

appointment of counsel at this time. Although plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding

17

on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim in this case, the pertinent facts and legal issues are

18

not particularly complex and have been adequately presented by plaintiff. This action proceeds

19

against one defendant on plaintiff’s allegations that defendant had responsibility to maintain

20

sanitation of the yard restroom at the California Medical Facility, but failed to do, resulting in

21

physical injury to plaintiff. See ECF No. 9 at 3-4 (screening order). The court has informed

22

plaintiff of the applicable legal standards for pursuing this claim. See id. These standards should

23

be considered by plaintiff in identifying evidence that supports his claim and formulating

24

appropriate discovery requests.1 Moreover, plaintiff’s request for appointment is premised on

25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s discovery requests may include the following: (1) requests for admission (yes-or-no
statements of fact) directed to each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36; (2) up to twenty-five
interrogatories (questions) directed to each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and (3) requests for
copies of documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible evidence directed to
each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
2

1

factors shared by most prisoners: financial inability to retain counsel, practical limitations due to

2

imprisonment, inexperience in litigation, and an anticipated trial requiring adequate presentation

3

of evidence and cross-examination of opposing witnesses. See ECF No. 22. None of these

4

factors support appointment of counsel at the present time.

5

Third, plaintiff complains of difficulties in accessing the CSP-SAC prison law library,

6

obtaining copies of his legal materials, and having access to pen and paper. See ECF Nos. 24, 25.

7

It is not the role of this court to micromanage the availability of the prison law library or a

8

prisoner’s access to legal copies or supplies. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

9

However, plaintiff may request an extension of any particular deadline if delays accessing the

10
11

prison library interfere with his ability to meet that deadline.
Finally, plaintiff is informed that his reply, ECF No. 23, to defendant’s answer to the First

12

Amended Complaint is not a pleading authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the

13

Local Rules. The reply will therefore be ignored. If the reply contains evidence and/or

14

arguments that plaintiff believes are essential to the merits of this action, this information should

15

be provided in an authorized form at an appropriate time, e.g., in a motion for, or opposition to, a

16

motion for summary judgment.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s motion concerning discovery, scheduling and setting a settlement

19
20
21
22

conference, ECF No. 21, is denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 22, is denied without
prejudice.
3. Plaintiff’s requests for the court’s assistance concerning access to the prison law

23

library, legal copies and writing materials, ECF Nos. 24, 25, are denied.

24

DATED: March 7, 2018

25
26
27
28
3