Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03348/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03348-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.J. MCELROY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-03348-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR 

CONTINUANCE

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. Dkt. 

21 at 1. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 

25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to 

counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an 

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on 

a request for counsel under section 1915. See id. 

The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which 

would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are 

at an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on 

the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of 

the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice. This does not mean, however, that the Court will not consider appointment of counsel 

at a later juncture in the proceedings; that is, after Defendant Adam has filed a dispositive motion 

Case 4:17-cv-03348-YGR Document 26 Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

such that the Court will be in a better position to consider the procedural and substantive matters at 

issue. Therefore, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel after 

Defendant Adam’s dispositive motion has been filed. If the Court decides that appointment of 

counsel is warranted at that time, it will seek volunteer counsel to agree to represent Plaintiff pro 

bono.

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a continuation “to re-familiarize with the case 

subject, court orders, motion practice toward full prosecution proper to this case.” Dkt. 21 at 1. 

Plaintiff explains that he has been suffering from the flu since the Court issued its February 23, 

2018 Order. Id. However, no such continuation is necessary at this time because Petitioner has no 

immediate pending deadlines. Therefore, his motion for a continuation is DENIED as 

unnecessary. 

Finally, the record shows that Deputy Attorney General Craig Modlin, who represents 

Defendant Adam, has waived service of the summons by submitting the waiver form on April 11, 

2018. Dkt. 23. Defendant Adam is reminded to file an answer to the complaint no later than May 

1, 2018. Thereafter, Defendant Adam shall file a motion for summary judgment, or other 

dispositive motion, no later than July 2, 2018. If Defendant Adam is of the opinion that this case 

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendant Adam shall so inform the Court prior to the 

date the summary judgment motion is due. If Defendant Adam files a dispositive motion, Plaintiff 

shall file an opposition, or notice of non-opposition, within twenty-eight (28) days of receiving 

Defendant Adam’s dispositive motion. Defendant Adam shall file a reply to any opposition within

fourteen (14) days thereafter.

This Order terminates Docket no. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

April 27, 2018

Case 4:17-cv-03348-YGR Document 26 Filed 04/27/18 Page 2 of 2