Woodall v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 51

ORDER (1) Denying 34 Motion for Appointment of Counsel ; (2) Denying 37 Motion to Exclude the Plaintiff from paying Pacer fees; (3) Denying 39 Motion to Attach Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint; (4) Granting in part and Denying in part 43 45 Motion for Order to San Diego Sheriff declaring the plaintiff to be a self-represented litigant. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/19/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SHAWN WOODALL,
CDCR #F-91270,

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

13

(2) DENYING MOTION TO
EXCLUDE THE PLAINTIFF FROM
PAYING PACER FEES;

vs.

16
17
18

(3) DENYING MOTION TO
ATTACH EXHIBITS TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT;

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

19
20
21

ORDER
(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

14
15

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)

Defendants.

22

(4) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
ORDER TO SAN DIEGO SHERIFF
DECLARING THE PLAINTIFF TO
BE A SELF-REPRESENTED
LITIGANT
[ECF Nos. 34, 37, 39, 43, 45]

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff, a former state inmate who appears to no longer be incarcerated, has filed

27

multiple motions in this matter. Currently pending before the Court are the following Motions:

28

(1) Motion for Appointment of Counsel; (2) Motion to Exclude Plaintiff from Paying Fees Under
-1-

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)

1

the Public Access to Court Electronic Records; (3) Motion to Attach Exhibits from First

2

Amended Complaint to Second Amended Complaint; (4) Motion for Order to San Diego Sheriff

3

Declaring the Plaintiff to Be a Self-Represented Litigant Before this Court; and (5) Amended

4

Motion for Order to San Diego Sheriff Declaring the Plaintiff a Self-Represented Litigant in this

5

Case. Also pending is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint which the Court will sua sponte

6

screen in a separate Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

7

I.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

8

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he claims he is unable to afford counsel

9

and his “imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate.” (See Mot. at 1-2.) The

10

Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however, unless an

11

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

12

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

13

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

14

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

15

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success

16

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

17

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

18

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

19

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

20

Here, the record is not sufficiently developed so that the Court can make a determination

21

on the likelihood of success on the merits at this stage of the proceedings. In addition, Plaintiff

22

appears to be able to articulate his claims as the Court previously found that some of Plaintiff’s

23

claims in his First Amended Complaint survived the sua sponte screening process. To the extent

24

that Plaintiff claimed his incarceration severely limited his access to the law library, that issue

25

is moot as it appears that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. Accordingly, the Court denies

26

Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice nor exceptional

27

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626

28

(9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.
-2-

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)

1

II.

Motion to Exclude Plaintiff from Paying Fees under PACER1

2

Plaintiff indicates that he has an active PACER account, however, he is unable to afford

3

the fees for using the account. This matter is part of the Court’s “CM/ECF”2 system. All parties

4

and Attorneys of record receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically.

5

To date, Plaintiff has received a paper copy of every Order issued in this matter due to his

6

previously incarcerated status. Plaintiff also has the option of viewing the Court’s docket in the

7

Clerk’s Office as computers are provided for this purpose. If Plaintiff wishes to download

8

documents, the fee is a very modest eight (8) cents a page. Moreover, there is a cap of only

9

$2.40 (30 pages) for the download of a single document. To obtain free PACER access implies

10

that Plaintiff is seeking to view cases other than the one currently before the Court which

11

requires only access to the Court’s CM/ECF system. The Court finds that a waiver of PACER’s

12

fees is neither appropriate nor warranted at this time. Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of PACER

13

FEES is DENIED.

14

III.

Motion to Attach Exhibits from First Amended Complaint to Second Amended

15

Complaint

16

Plaintiff seeks an Order permitting him to attach the fourteen hundred (1400) pages of

17

Exhibits attached to his First Amended Complaint to his Second Amended Complaint. In the

18

Court’s March 9, 2011 Order, a large number of Plaintiff’s claims found in his First Amended

19

Complaint were dismissed. Based on Plaintiff’s Motion, it appears that a large portion of the

20

Exhibits previously filed with his First Amended Complaint would pertain to claims that

21

Plaintiff has no longer included in his Second Amended Complaint. It would be unreasonable

22

and unduly burdensome to expect that any named Defendant or the Court would have to review

23

fourteen hundred pages of Exhibits to determine which Exhibit was related to the individual

24
25
26
27
28

1

PACER is an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronics which is the system that allows
users to obtain case and docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts via
the internet.
2

CM/ECF is the Court’s case management systems that maintains the electronic files in each
case and offers electronic filing over the Internet.
-3-

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)

1

claims found in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to

2

Attach Exhibits from First Amended Complaint to Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.

3

IV.

Plaintiff’s Motion and Amended Motion for Order to San Diego County Sheriff

4

Declaring the Plaintiff to be a Self-Represented Litigant before this Court

5

Plaintiff has been recently released from custody from the California Department of

6

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff indicates that he is anticipating that he will

7

be placed in the custody of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department on a parole violation. He is

8

requesting a Court order as a “precaution” because he believes that the “Sheriff is under the

9

mistaken belief that prisoners in his custody have no constitutional right to access to a law

10

library.” (Pl.’s Amd. Mot. at 1.)

11

First, Plaintiff is not currently in the custody of the CDCR or the San Diego County

12

Sheriff’s Department. He recently filed a Notice of Change of address that provides a regular

13

street address. Second, the Court has no jurisdiction over the San Diego County Sheriff’s

14

Department in this matter as they are not part of this action. While the Court will not issue an

15

Order declaring Plaintiff to be a Self-Represented Litigant, the Court will take judicial notice

16

that Plaintiff is representing himself in this action. Plaintiff’s Motions for Order Declaring the

17

Plaintiff to be a Self -Represented Litigant to San Diego County Sheriff are DENIED in part and

18

GRANTED in part.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED: September 19, 2011

22
23

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-4-

10cv1890 BTM (BGS)