Soares v. Paramo et al

Filing 128

Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) and S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. Attorney Sean Sullivan appointed for Manuel M. Soares. Pro Bono Counsel shall file, within fourteen (14) days of this Order if possible given Plaintiffs incarceration at CHF, a formal written Notice of Substitution of Attorney signed by both Plaintiff and his newly appointed counsel. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (Pro Bono counsel served copy of order).(mxn)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MANUEL M. SOARES, CDCR #F-39579, Case No.: 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) AND S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 15 16 D. PARAMO, Warden, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 MANUEL M. SOARES (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at the 20 California Healthcare Facility (“CHF”) in Stockton, California, is proceeding pro se and 21 in forma pauperis in this civil action, with both a Complaint and a Supplemental 22 Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF Nos. 1, 7. 23 Plaintiff contends Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights in 2012 24 when they transferred him involuntarily from Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 25 (“RJD”) to Atascadero State Hospital and then retaliated against him after he returned to 26 RJD in 2013 for exercising his First Amendment right to petition for redress regarding 27 the transfer. See ECF No. 1 at 8, 13; ECF No. 7 at 9-10. 28 /// 1 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB 1 I. 2 Procedural History After more than three years of litigation, on March 29, 2017, the Court denied 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) and granted in part and denied in part 4 Defendant Phan, Flynn, and Stratton’s MSJ (ECF No. 114). Defendant Laura Leard was 5 substituted as representative for the estate of deceased Defendant Jan Hansson pursuant 6 to FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a)(1) on January 11, 2017, but did not join the remaining 7 Defendants in moving for summary judgment. See ECF No. 114 at 3 n.2. Several post- 8 MSJ settlement conferences were held before United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. 9 Brooks, but no settlement was reached. See ECF Nos. 117, 119, 121, 122. On July 5, 10 2017, the Court held a pretrial conference, set deadlines for filing motions in limine, a 11 trial date, and scheduled a subsequent pretrial conference for October 11, 2017 (ECF No. 12 125). During the July 5, 2017 hearing, Plaintiff orally requested the appointment of 13 counsel, and finding it suitable, the Court referred the case to its Pro Bono Coordinator in 14 order to ascertain whether a randomly selected member of the Court’s Pro Bono Panel 15 could voluntarily accept a pro bono appointment for purposes of representing Plaintiff 16 during all further proceedings before this Court, up to and including trial. See S.D. Cal. 17 Gen. Order 596 (“Plan for the Representation of Pro Bono Litigation in Civil Case filed 18 in the Southern District of California”). 19 II. 20 Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel While there is no right to counsel in a civil action, a court may under “exceptional 21 circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent any person 22 unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 23 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits as 24 well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 25 complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 26 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 27 28 Applying these standards to this case, the Court has elected to exercise its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and has since the July 5, 2017 pretrial 2 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB 1 conference, located volunteer pro bono counsel who has graciously offered to represent 2 Plaintiff pro bono at the Court’s request pursuant to S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. The 3 Court’s Pro Bono Plan, as established by Gen. Order 596, specifically provides for 4 appointment of pro bono counsel “as a matter of course for purposes of trial in each 5 prisoner civil rights case where summary judgment has been denied.” See id. Summary 6 judgment was denied in this case on March 29, 2017, and the case has failed to settle. 7 Therefore, the Court has concluded the ends of justice would be served by the 8 appointment of pro bono counsel under the circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); 9 S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. 10 III. Conclusion and Order 11 Accordingly, the Court hereby APPOINTS Sean Sullivan, SBN 254372, of 12 Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, 525 B Street, Suite 2200, San Diego, 13 California, 92101, as Pro Bono Counsel for Plaintiff. 14 Pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3.f.2, Pro Bono Counsel shall file, within fourteen 15 (14) days of this Order if possible given Plaintiff’s incarceration at CHF, a formal written 16 Notice of Substitution of Attorney signed by both Plaintiff and his newly appointed 17 counsel. Such Notice will be considered approved by the Court upon its filing, and Pro 18 Bono Counsel will thereafter be considered attorney of record for Plaintiff for all 19 purposes during further proceedings before this Court, in this matter only, and at the 20 Court’s specific request. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3.f.1, 2. 21 22 23 24 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve Mr. Sullivan with a copy of this Order at the address listed above upon filing. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 77.3. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 31, 2017 25 26 27 28 3 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB

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?