Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00265/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00265-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOFOFORA EVA CONTRERAZ also

known as Mike Contreraz,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv265-GPC(PCL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

WITHHELD FUNDS AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Dkt. No. 52.]

vs.

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the

United States Department of Interior;

M. SHARON BLACKWELL, Deputy

Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Does

1, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Policy and Economic Development,

and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Lofofora Eva Contreraz (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to

Stay the Proceedings, Motion for Permission to Use Funds for an Attorney, and

Plaintiff’s alternate Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Dkt. No. 52.) Based on the

reasoning below, the Motion to Stay the Proceedings is GRANTED; the Motion for

Permission to Withdraw Funds is DENIED; and the Motion for Appointment of

Counsel is also DENIED. 

Background

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On August

9, 2012 the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

- 1 - [11cv265-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 58 Filed 10/30/13 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 40.) The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days

leave to file a second amended complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a second amended

complaint within the time allotted. On October 22, 2012, the case was transferred to

the undersigned judge. (Dkt. No. 42.) On April 15, 2013, the Court set a hearing to

show cause for dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41.1.

(Dkt. No. 43.) A hearing was held on May 17, 2013 with no appearances or response

to the order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 44.) The Court ordered the case dismissed

without prejudice for want of prosecution. (Id.) On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

motion to vacate judgment and ex parte motion for a stay. (Dkt. No. 47.) Plaintiff

showed good cause and the judgement was vacated and ex parte motion to stay granted

for 90 days. (Dkt. No. 48.) Plaintiff was given until October 1, 2013 to file a second

amended complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint but filed

the instant motion, including a Motion to Stay the Proceedings on October 1, 2013. 

(Dkt. No. 52.) 

Motion to Stay Proceedings

 Plaintiff filed this Motion to Stay due to difficulty with prison mail reception,

multiple prison transfers, time spent in the Dept. of Mental Health – where she is not

allowed her legal property– and lack of access to the law library. (Dkt. No. 52.)

Plaintiff also claims she has not received a copy of the August 2012 Order, (Dkt. No.

40), issued by Judge Gonzalez. Plaintiff claims that without this order she cannot

proceed. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay for 60

days and directs the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff a copy of Docket No. 40. 

Motion for Permission to Use Funds for Attorney 

Plaintiff requests permission to use her funds from Indian gaming revenue to hire

an attorney. (Dkt. No. 52.) However, the revenue allocation plan, adopted by

Plaintiff’s tribe, includes a provision that restricts members from receiving their funds

while they are incarcerated for the conviction of crime. (Dkt. No. 40.) Members

cannot receive these funds until they cure the conditions of their incarceration. (Id.) 

- 2 - [11cv265-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 58 Filed 10/30/13 Page 2 of 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

Plaintiff has petitioned the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Department of the

Interior for these funds, but her requests have been denied due to the incarceration

restriction. (Id.) Plaintiff challenges this incarceration restriction in her initial

complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

 This motion concerns the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint, specifically her

challenge of the revenue allocation plan with its incarceration restriction. Accordingly,

this issue will not be decided here and Plaintiff’s motion to use funds for an attorney

is DENIED. 

Motion to Appoint Counsel 

Plaintiff also moves for appointment of counsel. “[T]here is no absolute right to

counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32

F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). However, “[t]itle 28 U.S.C §

1915(e)(1) permits the district court, in its discretion, to ‘request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel.”’ Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514

F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)); see also Agyeman v.

Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Such discretion may be

exercised upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir.

1989). “To show exceptional circumstances the litigant must demonstrate the

likelihood of success and complexity of the legal issues involved.” Burns, 883 F.2d at

823 (citation omitted); Hedges, 32 F.3d at 1363; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332,

1335 (9th Cir. 1990). 

In this case, the circumstances are not exceptional. Plaintiff has litigated this case

for over two years without counsel. She has a sufficient grasp of the case and the legal

issues involved. Plaintiff adequately articulates these issues. This case does not rise to

the level of complexity required for appointment of counsel. Accordingly the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

/ / / /

- 3 - [11cv265-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 58 Filed 10/30/13 Page 3 of 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

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED for a period of sixty (60)

days. Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Use Funds for an Attorney is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s alternate Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. The Court

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the August 2012 Order Dkt.

No. 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 30, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [11cv265-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 58 Filed 10/30/13 Page 4 of 4