Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01678/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01678-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEAVE McCLOUD,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. WADDLE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01678-DAD-BAM-PC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Plaintiff McCloud is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 19, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed 

to file opposition to the motion, and on December 29, 2015, an order to show cause was entered, 

directing Plaintiff to file an opposition. Plaintiff failed to do so, and on February 1, 2016, 

findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this action be dismissed for 

Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and to prosecute. On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Case 1:11-cv-01678-DAD-BAM Document 40 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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

The objection seeks to “quash” Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff 

indicates that from November 23, 2015, to December 29, 2015, he was incapacitated at the 

Clinical Treatment Center undergoing mental health care. Plaintiff also states that his prayer for 

relief is that the Court grant Plaintiff funds to hire an attorney. Plaintiff has not previously 

sought the appointment of counsel.

I. Appointment of Counsel

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for funds to hire an attorney, there is no authority for the 

Court to authorize payment of funds to a pro se Plaintiff to retain a private attorney. Regarding 

the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff is advised that there is no constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court 

cannot require any attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. 

United States District Court for the Southern District 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 195(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, the 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).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of failure to protect and the legal issues 

present in this action are not complex. Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the 

complaint filed in this action. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle Plaintiff to 

appointed counsel. That it may be difficult for Plaintiff to prosecute this action does not 

constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a 

pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

Case 1:11-cv-01678-DAD-BAM Document 40 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro 

se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”) 

II. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff is advised that he must file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. The Court notes that Plaintiff was served with the requirements for opposing a motion 

for summary judgment on November 19, 2015. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff was specifically advised 

of the requirements and consequences of a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998)(en banc). (ECF No. 34, 5:14-27.) The Court will grant Plaintiff a thirty day 

extension of time to file opposition to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that should he 

fail to file an opposition to the motion within thirty days, the Court will recommend dismissal of 

this action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey and failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for funds to retain counsel and for the appointment of 

counsel is denied.

2. The February 1, 2016, findings and recommendations are vacated.

3. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of thirty days from the date of service of this 

order in which to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01678-DAD-BAM Document 40 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3