Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02544/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02544-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:08-cv-2544 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s June 1, 2015 motion for legal 

property, for an extension of time and for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 159.) For the 

following reasons, this motion is denied.

On March 30, 2015, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part defendants’ 

summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 149.) On March 27, 2015, plaintiff filed an interlocutory 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the March 30, 2015 order. (ECF No. 152.) 

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that his brief to the Ninth Circuit is due on August 5, 

2015. (ECF No. 159 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he “still” does not have access to his four boxes 

of legal property that he needs to prepare his brief. (Id. at 2.) 

The undersigned previously addressed a claim by plaintiff alleging denial of access to 

legal property. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order prison 

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 161 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

officials to return his legal property. (ECF No. 140.) Plaintiff alleged that prison officials 

confiscated his legal property on October 8, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that most of his legal 

property was stored in a warehouse. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that prison officials would not give

him access to his legal property without a court order. (Id.)

On January 28, 2015, pursuant to the All Writs Act, the undersigned issued an order 

directing the Warden of the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”), where plaintiff is 

housed, to respond to plaintiff’s claims alleging denial of access to his legal property. (ECF No. 

141.) On February 5, 2015, SATF Litigation Coordinator Barba filed a declaration in response to 

the January 28, 2015 order. (ECF No. 143.) In relevant part, Litigation Coordinator Barba stated 

that plaintiff was housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) pending the outcome of 

two disciplinary actions. (Id.) If found guilty, plaintiff would most likely serve his term in a 

Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). (Id.) If found guilty, plaintiff would be put up for transfer to an 

institution with a SHU. (Id.) 

Litigation Coordinator Barba further stated that when plaintiff was transferred to SATF, 

he arrived with approximately 16 cubic feet (or about 8 boxes) of legal material. (Id.) On 

October 17, 2014, plaintiff was issued his property, including 6 cubic feet (about 3 boxes) of legal 

material. (Id.) Due to the prison’s property-restriction policy, plaintiff was only allowed to have 

6 cubic feet of legal property in his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff’s remaining legal property was stored in 

the ASU and could be accessed during the weekdays by submitting a request to the E1 Law 

library. (Id.) Plaintiff could rotate/substitute out his boxes of legal material, but he could only 

have 6 cubic feet of legal material in his cell at any given time. (Id.) According to Litigation 

Coordinator Barba, there was no indication that plaintiff had submitted a request to access his 

legal property from storage or that he had sought to exchange the boxes he had in his cell with 

those in storage since he was given his property on October 17, 2014. (Id.) 

On February 13, 2015, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s January 26, 2015 motion for 

access to his legal property. (ECF No. 144.) The undersigned found that Litigation Coordinator 

Barba’s declaration indicated that plaintiff could request access to his stored legal property but 

had not done so. (Id.) The undersigned concluded that Litigation Coordinator Barba’s 

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 161 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

declaration demonstrated that plaintiff was not being denied access to his legal property. (Id.)

In the pending motion, plaintiff does not allege that any circumstances described in 

Litigation Coordinator Barba’s declaration have changed. In other words, plaintiff is still housed 

in the SATF ASU. Plaintiff also does not describe any attempts to gain access to his stored legal 

property. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s pending request for access to 

his legal property is not well supported. 

If plaintiff requires an extension of time to prepare his appellate brief, he shall make his 

request to the Ninth Circuit.

In the pending motion, plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. District courts 

lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. 

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may 

request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell 

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 

consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to 

appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance 

of counsel. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for legal property, for an extension of time and for appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 159) is denied;

////

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 161 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

Dated: June 18, 2015

Sol2544.pro

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 161 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 4