Furnace v. Knuckles et al

Filing 101

ORDER DENYING 100 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; REQUESTING PRISON OFFICIALS ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 12, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SGT. K KNUCKLES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
EDWARD TERRAN FURNACE,

No. C 09-6075 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL; REQUESTING PRISON
OFFICIALS ALLOW REASONABLE
ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS;
DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
(Docket No. 100)

15
16
17
18

On December 30, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State

19

Prison (“CSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 26, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary

21

judgment (hereafter, “motion for summary judgment”). On August 29, 2011, the Court

22

allowed plaintiff to take discovery relating to the motion for summary judgment and directed

23

plaintiff to complete such discovery within 120 days. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s

24

second motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff asserts he is entitled to counsel on the

25

ground that prison officials are denying him access to legal materials and supplies.

26

Specifically, plaintiff states he sent his discovery requests to the prison law library for

27

copying and that the documents have neither been copied nor returned to him. Plaintiff also

28

states he has been denied access to the prison law library.

1

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v.
Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a

3

district court has the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

4

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision to request counsel to represent an

5

indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted

6

only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.

7

1984). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of (1) the likelihood

8

of the plaintiff’s success on the merits, and (2) the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims

9

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To date, plaintiff has been able to

11

present his claims in an adequate manner and there are no exceptional circumstances

12

warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Should the circumstances of the case

13

materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s request sua sponte.

14

Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

15

1. Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

16

2. Prison officials at CSP are hereby REQUESTED to provide plaintiff access to his

17

legal materials and to the prison law library, to the extent such access is consistent with

18

security concerns and other applicable policies and procedures of the facility.

19
20

3. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Litigation
Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison, P.O. Box 8800, Corcoran, CA 93212-8309.

21

This order terminates Docket No. 100.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: December 12, 2011

24
25

_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2