Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01536-9/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAYSON QUICK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 57) AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL 

30 DAYS TO RESPOND TO COURT’S 

ORDER REQUIRING STATEMENTS 

REGARDING SCHEDULE AND 

DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 50).

Plaintiff Edward Torres is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 57) but grants Plaintiff additional 30 days to 

respond to Court’s Order requiring parties to submit statements regarding schedule and 

discovery (ECF No. 50).

I. BACKGROUND.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 30, 2022. (ECF No. 

1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that the following claims should 

proceed past the screening stage: Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 

defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; his Eighth Amendment failure 

to protect claims against defendants Quick, Garza, Garcia, Valadez, Prince, and Martinez; and 

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 4
2

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

his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Ontiveros for deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical needs. (Id.). 

At the start of this case, the Court issued Informational Order, warning Plaintiff he 

“must keep the Court and opposing parties informed of the party’s correct current address. 

Local Rule 182(f). If a party moves to a different address without filing and serving a notice of 

change of address, documents served at a party’s old address of record shall be deemed 

received even if not actually received. Id.” (ECF No. 4 at 5). The Court also cautioned Plaintiff 

that failure to follow the Court’s orders and all applicable rules “will be grounds for imposition 

of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case.” (Id. at 1).

After all the defendants were served and appeared in this action, on February 29, 2024, 

the Court ordered parties to file scheduling statements within 30 days. (ECF No. 50). However, 

this order was returned to Court on March 8, 2024, marked as “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” 

The deadline set by the Court’s order to file the statements (ECF No. 50) had passed, 

and while Defendants timely filed theirs (ECF Nos. 53, 54), Plaintiff had failed to do so.

Accordingly, on April 10, 2024, the Court issued a minute order granting Plaintiff a single sua 

sponte extension, until April 24, 2024, to file his statement. (ECF No. 55). The Court also 

advised Plaintiff that “that failure to file his statement by this date may result in the dismissal of 

this case.” (Id.; see also ECF No. 4 at 1 (failure to follow the Court’s orders and all applicable 

rules “will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case.”)) 

This order was likewise returned to Court on April 29, 2024, marked as “Undeliverable, Not in 

Custody.” 

After the extended deadline to respond to the Court’s order had passed, and Plaintiff 

still had not filed his scheduling statement, updated his address, or had otherwise 

communicated with the Court, on May 9, 2024, the Court issued Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

Court’s orders. (ECF No. 56). The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file objections to Findings 

and Recommendations. (Id.)

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 4
3

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

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff has now responded by filing a motion (ECF No. 57). He asks for an extension 

of time to respond to Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal and for Court to 

appoint him an attorney. (Id.) Plaintiff states he is homeless and has no regular address to 

receive mail, but at least at the time of writing, he was incarcerated in Madera County Jail. (Id.)

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 

952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

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

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court is unable to determine at this time whether Plaintiff’s likelihood of success 

on the merits is such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The only 

filings before the Court are parties’ initial pleadings; discovery is yet to be open and dispositive 

motions that would define and narrow issues have not yet been filed. After the review of 

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, it appears that the legal issues involved are not extremely 

complex and that Plaintiff is able to articulate the facts underlying his claims. Accordingly, the 

Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for counsel without prejudice.

III. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The Court will grant Plaintiff an additional 30 days, until June 17, 2024, to respond to 

the Court’s Order issued on February 29, 2024, Requiring Statements from Parties Regarding 

Schedule and Discovery (ECF No. 50). 

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 4
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

The Court will not vacate its Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal

at this time. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff still has not filed the statement regarding schedule and 

discovery or indicated that he intends to proceed without counsel going forward. However, the

Court will not rule on Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal (ECF No. 56) 

until after June 17, 2024. If Plaintiff files a statement regarding schedule and discovery by that 

date, the Court will vacate its Findings and Recommendations and the case will proceed. If 

Plaintiff fails to do so, the District Judge will rule on Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.

2. Along with this Order, the Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff Order 

Requiring Statements from Parties Regarding Schedule and Discovery (ECF No. 

50). 

3. Plaintiff is granted additional 30 days to respond to the Court’s Order Requiring 

Statements (ECF No. 50).

4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 58 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 4