Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-9/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 32.)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RETURN OF PROPERTY AS 

MOOT

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(ECF Nos. 33, 34.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO 

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Dale Owen Dustin (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on June 25, 2014. (ECF No. 1.)

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for return of 

his personal property. (ECF No. 32.) On March 17, 2016 and April 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed 

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 37 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 3
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

motions for extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) Plaintiff’s 

motions are now before the Court.

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

of 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. At 

this early stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s Complaint was dismissed on May 18, 2015 for 

violation of Rule 8(a), with leave to amend (ECF No. 19), and to date Plaintiff has not filed an 

amended complaint. Thus, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the Court has 

found cognizable claims. It is too early for service of process, and no other parties have yet 

appeared. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the 

motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

III. MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY

Plaintiff requests a Court order directing prison officials to locate his personal property 

and return it to him. On April 26, 2016, the Court received notice that Plaintiff’s property was 

returned to him on April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) Based on this notice, Plaintiff’s motion is 

moot and shall be denied as such.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 37 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 3
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

IV. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint, pursuant to the 

Court’s order of May 18, 2016. Plaintiff asserts that since his transfer from Corcoran State 

Prison to Kern Valley State Prison, where he is housed in administrative segregation, his 

property has not been returned to him and therefore he has been unable to prepare and file an 

amended complaint. As noted above, the Court received notice that Plaintiff’s property was 

returned to him on April 22, 2016. The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension 

of time to file an amended complaint.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the return of his property is DENIED as moot; 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time to file an amended complaint are 

GRANTED;

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff is required to file an 

amended complaint, pursuant to the Court’s order of May 18, 2015;

5. No further extensions of time shall be granted without a showing of good cause; 

and

6. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed for failure to obey a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 37 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 3