Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01313/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01313-8/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO A. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01313-BAM (PC)

ORDER REINSTATING BRIEFING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR ORDER ON MOTION TO 

COMPEL

(ECF No. 36)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF No. 35)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 

DEADLINE

(ECF No. 34)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Marco A. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Garcia and Bursiaga for excessive force in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 

5, 27.)

///

Case 1:17-cv-01313-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Motion to Compel and Motion for Order on Motion to Compel

On July 10, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery and request for award of 

sanctions. (ECF No. 31.) On July 11, 2019, the Court issued an order directing the parties to 

meet and confer regarding their discovery dispute, and to file a joint statement following the 

parties’ conference. The Court stayed further briefing on Defendants’ motion to compel. (ECF 

No. 32.)

On July 25, 2019, rather than filing a joint statement as directed, Defendants filed their 

own statement, with Plaintiff’s statement attached as Exhibit 1. (ECF No. 33.) In their statement, 

Defendants indicate that the phone call between defense counsel and Plaintiff lasted 

approximately 15–20 minutes, during which Plaintiff repeatedly stated he had not responded to 

the discovery requests because he does not know how to, and he did not have any estimate as to 

when he could respond to the discovery. Plaintiff stated that he has access to a law library and a 

computer in prison but does not fully know how to use it. Defense counsel suggested to Plaintiff 

that for his portion of the joint statement, he write in plain English without being overly 

concerned that his writing was not “lawyer-like.” Finally, Defendants indicate that none of the 

issues that were the subject of Defendants’ pending motion to compel were resolved during the 

meet and confer, including the Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents 

propounded by both Defendants Bursiaga and Garcia. (Id. at 2–3; ECF No. 33-1, pp. 1–2.)

In Plaintiff’s portion of the “joint” statement, Plaintiff states that during the call he 

explained that he is a non-attorney and he did not know how to respond to the requests. Plaintiff 

was also overwhelmed by the amount of paperwork he received and that most of what was 

requested was what Plaintiff requested and was told he could not have because he is an inmate. 

Plaintiff felt it would be a waste of time to respond to something Defendants should reasonably 

know he does not have and has no access to. Plaintiff specifically indicates that in the Kings 

County Jail, where the alleged incident occurred, they do not give inmates pictures of incidents or 

staff reports other than a write up, and there is no way to get copies of medical slips or things of 

that nature as an inmate. Furthermore, Plaintiff states that as he is no longer in the custody of 

Kings County, there is no way he can get medical records. Plaintiff also appears to state that 

Case 1:17-cv-01313-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendants already have the records they are requesting. Plaintiff repeats that he did not respond 

because he did not understand the requests, and asks for more time to understand what he is 

required to do to respond. (ECF No. 33, p. 5.)

On March 26, 2020, Defendants’ filed a motion for the Court to issue a ruling on the 

pending motion to compel, styled as an “Ex Parte Request for Order on Motion to Compel.” 

(ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file an opposition, but the Court finds a 

response to this motion unnecessary, and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Based on the statements submitted by the parties, it does not appear to the Court that the 

parties discussed any of the specific interrogatories or requests for production at issue in the 

motion to compel. In particular, it is not clear whether Plaintiff raised his specific issues 

regarding his inability to obtain medical records or photographs as requested by Defendants 

during the parties’ call, or if he did, whether defense counsel took those issues into consideration 

before deciding that none of the discovery requests raised in the motion to compel could be 

resolved without Court intervention.

Thus, the Court declines to issue a ruling on the motion to compel at this time. Rather, 

having considered the representations of the parties, the Court finds it appropriate to reinstate 

briefing on Defendants’ motion to compel to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to submit an 

opposition. In his opposition, Plaintiff may raise objections that generally address how or why he 

is unable to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, or objections that are specifically directed 

to any of the individual interrogatories or requests for production of documents raised in the 

motion to compel.

II. Motion to Appoint Counsel

On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff also filed a second motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 

35.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel due to his limited knowledge of the 

law, and because he does not know how to litigate and respond to Defendants’ requests. Plaintiff 

states he does not know how to conduct legal research and he is not computer literate, and his 

incarceration prevents him from conducting discovery, interviewing witnesses and having access 

to documents and discovery necessary to litigate this case. (Id.)

Case 1:17-cv-01313-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

As Plaintiff has been informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on 

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

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 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, but does not 

find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed 

in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, 

his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases involving excessive force filed 

by prisoners proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis almost daily. These prisoners also must 

conduct legal research, respond to discovery requests, and gather evidence without the assistance 

of counsel. 

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the 

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Throughout this action, 

Plaintiff has been able to prepare and file documents that clearly set forth his contentions, without 

assistance from counsel.

III. Motion to Amend Scheduling Order

On August 5, 2019, Defendants submitted a motion to amend the scheduling order. (ECF 

No. 34.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

///

Case 1:17-cv-01313-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

In the motion, Defendants request an extension of the discovery deadline from August 12, 

2019 to September 13, 2019. (Id.) As this date has since expired, and the Court is ordering that 

briefing on the pending motion to compel be reinstated, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the 

motion, in part.

IV. Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel 

responses to discovery requests, (ECF No. 31);

2. Within seven (7) days from the date of filing in CM/ECF of Plaintiff’s response or 

opposition to the motion to compel, Defendants may file a reply;

3. Defendants’ motion for order on motion to compel, (ECF No. 36), is DENIED;

4. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 35), is DENIED without prejudice; 

5. Defendants’ motion to amend scheduling order, (ECF No. 34), is GRANTED IN 

PART; and

6. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines set in the Court’s December 12, 2018 

discovery and scheduling order, (ECF No. 26), are VACATED and will be reset 

following resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01313-BAM Document 37 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 5