Stevenson v. Jones

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY AND COUNSEL 28 29 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES L. STEVENSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05241-SI
ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR
DISCOVERY AND COUNSEL

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 29

M. JONES,
Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiff has filed a “motion for Brady discovery material,” in which he asks for

14

“exculpatory” evidence from defendant’s personnel file. (Docket No. 28.) A Brady motion is a

15

procedure used in criminal cases, not in civil cases. The court already authorized the parties to

16

engage in discovery, and plaintiff does not need a further court order to conduct discovery.

17

(Docket No. 6 at 4.) If plaintiff wants to obtain discovery, he must comply with the discovery

18

rules in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37. The court generally is not involved in the

19

discovery process and becomes involved only when there is a dispute between the parties about

20

discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the

21

parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and

22

responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court

23

orders otherwise). Plaintiff’s motion for Brady material is DENIED. (Docket No. 28.)

24

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A

25

district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an

26

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

27

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

28

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

1

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

2

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances

3

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. Plaintiff states that he has been

4

denied pro per status at the jail at which he is housed. The exhibit to his motion indicates that

5

jailers are not designating him “pro per” because he is not proceeding pro per in his criminal case,

6

but that Prisoner Legal Services department in the jail would provide some sort of assistance to

7

him in his civil action. (Docket No. 29-2 at 2.) Although it may not be precisely the pro per

8

status he desires, plaintiff has not shown that he has attempted to utilize the assistance which is

9

being offered him by Prisoner Legal Services.

Further, plaintiff’s legal claims are rather

straightforward and he has been able to articulate his position adequately while representing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

himself. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket No. 29.)

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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