Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03824-7/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS L. HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INSTITUTIONAL GANG OF 

INVESTIGATIONS; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3824 SI (pr)

ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS

MATTERS AND REFERRING CASE

TO MEDIATION PROGRAM

Marcus L. Harrison, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a First Amendment claim regarding the confiscation of some of his

outgoing and incoming mail. On February 22, 2010, the court denied defendants' motion for

summary judgment and ordered the parties to file case management reports indicating what

discovery remains to be done, the amount of time needed for discovery, whether any further

motions would be filed, when they would be ready for trial, and the expected length of the trial.

Defendants filed a case management statement, but plaintiff did not. Plaintiff filed a motion to

amend his complaint to add a request for punitive damages, which defendants did not oppose.

Plaintiff also filed a request for production of documents and a motion for appointment of

counsel. 

Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a request for punitive damages against

the defendants in their individual capacities is GRANTED. (Docket # 45.) The complaint is

deemed amended to include the request for punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 from

each defendant in his individual capacity.

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 50 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff's request for production of documents is DISMISSED as improperly filed.

(Docket # 49.) The court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes

involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery

requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the

court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed

with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when

the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the

parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not

have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties

present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very

specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires

that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court

intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one

of the parties is a prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the

prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although

the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same:

the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court

intervention in any discovery dispute. 

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 44.) A district court

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

litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability

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

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

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

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. The denial of the motion for

appointment of counsel is without prejudice to plaintiff filing another motion if his case is not

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 50 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

resolved in the mediation program. 

The court has a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program in which selected prisoner cases with

unrepresented plaintiffs are referred to a neutral magistrate judge for mediation proceedings

consisting of one or more conferences as determined by the mediator. Now that the court has

ruled on the dispositive motion and this case appears almost ready for trial, it may be helpful for

the parties to consider mediation. Good cause appearing therefor, this case is now referred to

Magistrate Judge Vadas for mediation proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation

Program. The proceedings will take place within 90 days of the date this order is filed.

Magistrate Judge Vadas will coordinate a time and date for a mediation proceeding with all

interested parties and/or their representatives and, within five days after the conclusion of the

mediation proceedings, file with the court a report for the prisoner mediation proceedings. 

The clerk will send to Magistrate Judge Vadas a copy of the complaint, the February 22,

2010 order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment, and this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03824-SI Document 50 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 3