Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06551/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06551-3/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

KENNETH E. BAPTISTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06551-HSG 

ORDER DENYING RENEWED 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 16

Plaintiff, an inmate at California Training Facility – Central (“CTF”), filed this pro se civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s renewed 

request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 16. The Court denied plaintiff’s original request for 

appointment of counsel on November 6, 2019 for lack of exceptional circumstances without 

prejudice to sua sponte appointing counsel should circumstances so require. Dkt. No. 6 at 7-8. 

On March 17, 2020, defendants answered the complaint, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, by filing 

a waiver of reply, as allowed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Dkt. No. 15. Defendants also filed a jury 

demand to preserve their right to a jury trial on any issue triable by right by a jury by filing a jury 

demand, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff describes the waiver of reply 

and jury demand as an “extraordinary development” that requires appointment of counsel and, on 

this basis, seeks reconsideration of the Court’s earlier denial of appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 

16 at 1. The filing of a waiver of reply and jury demand is required by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The filing is not an extraordinary development and it does not constitute the type of 

exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 

1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984) (decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 

§ 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 

Case 4:19-cv-06551-HSG Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 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

circumstances.”). The Court DENIES plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel. 

This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date 

should the circumstances of this case so warrant. 

This order terminates Dkt. No. 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/30/2020

Case 4:19-cv-06551-HSG Document 17 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2