Negrete v. Lewis et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/19/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2012)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 12/19/12*

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

SALVADOR NEGRETE,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C 12-0809 RS (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
G.D. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.
/

18
19

This is a federal civil rights action. The complaint was dismissed with leave to

20

amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. The action is hereby DISMISSED because

21

the amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies discussed in the Court’s prior order.

22

The allegations are conclusory and undetailed, and as such fail to show that plaintiff suffered

23

an actual injury because of an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access program. More

24

specifically, he has failed to show that the alleged inadequacy in the prison’s program

25

hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions

26

of confinement. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354–55 (1996).

27
28
No. C 12-0809 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 7) is DENIED. The

2

decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound

3

discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v.

4

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional circumstances”

5

requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an

6

evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of

7

the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101,

8

1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

9

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues involved

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

as complex. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has not

11

shown that exceptional circumstances exist. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 7, enter

12

judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: December 19, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

No. C 12-0809 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL