Morris v. Barra et al
Filing
44
ORDER (1) granting Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Discovery; (2) denying as moot Plaintiff's 42 Motion for Discovery; (3) denying Plaintiff's 33 Request for Copies; (4) denying Plaintiff's 38 , 41 Requests for Pretrial and Set ting for Trial; (5) denying Plaintiff's 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 08/31/11. (USMS included in NEF) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge) Modified judge's name on 9/1/2011 (cge).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CONDALEE MORRIS,
12
Civil No.
Plaintiff,
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 31);
(2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 42);
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR COPIES (Doc. No. 33);
(4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR PRETRIAL AND SETTING FOR
TRIAL (Doc. Nos. 38 & 41); &
(5) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. No. 40)
13
14
v.
15
16
17
10-CV-2642-AJB (BGS)
M BARR, Program Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants.
18
19
20
On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff Condalee Morris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
21
forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, filed a first
22
amended complaint. (Doc. No. 7.) On April 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to
23
proceed in forma pauperis and directed the U.S. Marshall to effect service of the summons and first
24
amended complaint upon the defendants pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
25
(Doc. No. 12.) On August 4, 2011, nunc pro tunc to July 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for
26
discovery, seeking the address of Defendant Mace. (Doc. No. 31.) On August 4, 2011, nunc pro
27
tunc to July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for a copy of the complaint and docket text in this
28
case. (Doc. No. 33.) On August 12, 2011, nunc pro tunc to July 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request
1
10cv2642-AJB
1
for the Court to hold an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, discovery conference, or status/case
2
management conference. (Doc. No. 38.) On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint
3
counsel (Doc. No. 40), a motion for pretrial and setting for trial (Doc. No. 41), and a motion for
4
discovery seeking the address of Defendant Mace (Doc. No. 42).
5
I. Motions for Discovery
6
On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal (“USMS”) to effect
7
service on the Defendants named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 12.)
8
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order of the
9
court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
10
“‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S.
11
Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his
12
action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to
13
perform his duties.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v.
14
Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,
15
515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify
16
the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause....’” Walker, 14
17
F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)). However, where
18
a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the USMS with accurate and sufficient information to effect service
19
of the summons and complaint, the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is
20
appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22; see also Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir.
21
1987) (noting that plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service”; rather,
22
“[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to
23
remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge”).
24
Here, Plaintiff seeks assistance in serving Defendant Mace, medical staff at Calipatria. The
25
summons as to Defendant Mace has been returned “unexecuted.” (Doc. No. 16.) The return of
26
summons unexecuted indicates that Defendant Mace is not employed at Calipatria.
27
Accordingly, as long as Defendant Mace’s forwarding address can be easily ascertained by reference
28
to the CDCR’s personnel records, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the USMS to effect service upon this
2
(Id.)
10cv2642-AJB
1
Defendant on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at 275.
2
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Doc. No. 31) and hereby directs the USMS
3
to contact either the Litigation Coordinator at the Calipatria State Prison or the CDCR’s Legal
4
Affairs Division, if necessary, and provide current addresses within the CDCR’s records or
5
possession, and to forward those addresses to the USMS in a confidential memorandum. The Court
6
denies as moot Plaintiff’s second motion for discovery (Doc. No. 42), as it seeks the same relief.
7
II. Request for Copies
8
Plaintiff requests a copy of the complaint in this case, as well as a copy of the docket because
9
he was denied his request to transfer facilities with his legal materials. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff filed
10
a notice of change of address on July 25, 2011, indicating that he is now housed at Calipatria state
11
prison. (Doc. No. 27.) The Court denies Plaintiff’s request. On August 1, 2011, the Court directed
12
the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the docket. (Doc. No. 28.) This post-dates
13
his recent change of address to Calipatria, and therefore Plaintiff should have a copy of the docket.
14
Additionally, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s recent submission of a duplicate copy of the First
15
Amended Complaint and directed that the submission be returned to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 36.)
16
Therefore, Plaintiff will have in his possession a copy of the complaint in this action.
17
III. Motions for Pretrial and Setting for Trial
18
Plaintiff requests that the Court set an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, a discovery
19
conference, or a status/case management conference. (Doc. Nos. 38 & 41.) The Court denies
20
Plaintiff’s requests. Pursuant to Civ.L.R. 16.1(e)(8), Early Neutral Evaluation Conferences are not
21
set in section 1983 prisoner cases. Additionally, it is premature for a case management or discovery
22
conference in this case, as no defendant has yet to file an answer.
23
IV. Motion to Appoint Counsel
24
Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action.
25
(Doc. No. 40.) This is Plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel. The Court previously
26
denied his request without prejudice on April 13, 2011, noting that neither the interests of justice
27
nor exceptional circumstances warranted appointing counsel at the time. (Doc. No. 12 at 4.)
28
Plaintiff makes the same arguments for appointment of counsel that he asserted previously. (Doc.
3
10cv2642-AJB
1
No. 40; cf. Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff asserts that this case may involve expert testimony, the case will
2
require discovery of documents and depositions of witnesses, Plaintiff has only a high school
3
education and no legal education, this is a complex case, and that Plaintiff has limited access to legal
4
materials and has no ability to investigate the facts of the case. (Doc. No. 40.)
5
“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a §1983 action.” Rand v. Rowland,
6
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.
7
1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir.
8
1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation omitted). Thus,
9
federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v.
10
United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in
11
U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).
12
Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), to “request” that
13
an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See
14
Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at
15
1525. “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least
16
an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the
17
plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’”
18
Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986));
19
see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice
21
nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,
22
827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The Court previously denied
23
Plaintiff’s request and nothing has substantially changed in this case since that time to change the
24
Court’s analysis. Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims, as the Court found that
25
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint contained allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte
26
screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See Doc. No. 12 at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s
27
second amended complaint is identical to his first amended complaint, except for additional
28
attachments in support of his complaint. (See Doc. No. 39.)
4
10cv2642-AJB
1
Any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d
2
at 1525 (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331). Nonetheless, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff
3
in this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the
4
“exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Id.
5
(finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment
6
of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realms of
7
discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”); accord Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th
8
Cir. 2009). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments regarding his ability to obtain
9
discovery, the potential need for experts, and his ability to obtain discovery and conduct depositions
10
are not exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Most of
11
Plaintiff’s arguments are not based on the complexity of the legal issues involved but rather on the
12
general difficulty of litigating pro se. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
13
1986) (noting that, “If all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant
14
issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would
15
involve complex legal issues.”).
Conclusion
16
17
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
18
1.
GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for discovery (Doc. No. 31) and directs the USMS to
19
contact either the Litigation Coordinator at Calipatria State Prison or the CDCR’s
20
Legal Affairs Division, if necessary, and provide current addresses for Defendant
21
Mace within the CDCR’s records or possession, and to forward those addresses to the
22
USMS in a confidential memorandum;
23
2.
DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s second request for discovery (Doc. No. 42);
24
3.
DENIES Plaintiff’s request for copies (Doc. No. 33);
25
4.
DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for pretrial and setting for trial (Doc. Nos. 38 & 41); and
26
///
27
///
28
///
5
10cv2642-AJB
1
2
3
5.
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No.
40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
DATED: August 31, 2011
5
6
BERNARD G. SKOMAL
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
10cv2642-AJB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?