Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03861/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03861-0/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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3861 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER; FURTHER

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Docket Nos. 22, 32, 49) 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections, Pelican Bay State

Prison, and prison officials. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

in a separate order. On August 1, 2005, the Court issued an Order of Service of the

complaint on Defendants California Department of Corrections; Officer T. Travis; Officer

D. Luna; Officer B. Chaucer and Warden Joe McGrath. The Court dismissed the

Defendant State Of California and dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims

against Defendant “Does” 1-25, employees of the California Department of Corrections. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming eight additional Defendants and

**Original filed 8/8/06**

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861misc 2

alleging one additional claim. On February 13, 2006, the Court ordered service of the

amended complaint on the additional defendants and referred this action to the Pro Se

Prisoner Mediation Program. Plaintiff filed two motions for appointment of counsel, a

motion for a temporary restraining order, and opposition to any out of court mediation. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006. For the reasons set forth below,

the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motions (docket nos. 22, 32, 49) and issue a further

scheduling order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff contends that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he is unable to afford counsel, he is limited

in litigating this case due to his incarceration, he has limited access to the law library, and

limited knowledge of the law. Plaintiff maintains that the issues are complex and require

significant research and investigation, therefore counsel is necessary to present evidence

and to cross examine witnesses at trial. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of

Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only

the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 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 Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 6
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 The district court cannot properly balance the hardships without taking into account the

hardship, or lack of hardship, to the non-movants. Armstrong v. Mazurek, 94 F.3d 566, 568 (9th

Cir. 1996).

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861misc 3

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery was

comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). Plaintiff’s claims

appear to be relatively straightforward and he has aptly presented his claims so far. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this

time. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 22, 49) are DENIED

without prejudice. 

B. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff has filed an order to show cause for an injunction and motion for a

temporary restraining order. In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court order that the

Defendants are prevented from releasing Plaintiff from Administrative Segregation

prematurely back into the general prison population without an adjudication of the merits

of the Del Norte County pending criminal case and adjudication of his Rule Violation

Report (“115 ”). See Pl.’s Mot. at 1-3. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that requests for injunctive relief may be based upon

either of two sets of criteria. The “traditional” test requires the movants to: (1) establish a

strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of irreparable injury to

the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships

favoring the movants1

; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. 

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200

(9th Cir. 1980). 

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 6
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861misc 4

The “alternative” test requires that the movants demonstrate either a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See

Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990); Alaska v. Native Village of

Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988); American Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714

F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding

scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of

success decreases. Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 795. At the very least, however, the

moving party must show a fair chance of success on the merits. Armstrong v. Mazurek,

94 F.3d 566, 567 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown sufficient facts to establish that

he actually faces irreparable harm at this time. Nor has Plaintiff shown his probable

success on the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction and temporary

restraining order (docket no. 32) is DENIED without prejudice.

C. Further Scheduling Order

The Court referred the instant action to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. 

Plaintiff filed an objection to any out of court mediation. On July 5, 2006, Magistrate

Judge Vadas filed a mediation report stating that the parties were unable to reach an

agreement at the June 16, 2006 mediation. On June 19, 2006, Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss specific Defendants. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition in the

scheduling order as set forth below. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 22, 49) are 

DENIED without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction and temporary restraining order (docket 

no. 32) is DENIED without prejudice.

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861misc 5

3. Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket 

no. 53) with the Court and serve a copy on Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from

the date this order is filed. 

4. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

6. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on

Defendant’s counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant’s counsel.

7. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court and the parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/8/06 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 5 of 6
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order;

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861misc 6

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Michael L. Roberts

P-44841

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Jennifer J. Nygaard

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 6 of 6