Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03252/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03252-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE HARRY PAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. 

OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-3252 SI (pr)

ORDER

This matter is now before the court for consideration of several miscellaneous matters.

First, plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. A district court has

discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil

litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986). This requires evaluation of 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. See id. Neither of these factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

deciding on a request for counsel under section 1915(e)(1). Having considered both of these

factors, the court concludes that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel

are not evident at this time. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 52.)

Second, plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental

complaint, but did not attach to it a proposed amended/supplemental complaint. Federal Rule

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so

requires" but the court cannot make that determination without seeing the proposed new

pleading. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Obviously, without this draft

complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate the merits of a plaintiff's request . . . [T]he court

had nothing upon which to exercise its discretion.") The motion for leave to amend is DENIED

without prejudice because plaintiff failed to attach the proposed amended complaint. (Docket

# 44.) Regardless of whether plaintiff intends to file a motion to amend/supplement his

complaint, he must comply with the briefing schedule for defendant Clark's dispositive motion.

Third, there were four defendants (i.e., defendants Lara, Lewis, Martinez, and Lustman)

who could not be served with process based on the information plaintiff had provided. The court

ordered plaintiff to provide current addresses and full names for those defendants. Plaintiff

never provided to the court the information necessary to serve process on the four unserved

defendants and the deadline by which to do so passed many months ago. See January 19, 2007

Order, p. 5; June 27, 2006 Order, pp. 1-2. Accordingly, defendants Lara, Lewis, Martinez and

Lustman are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action. 

Fourth, plaintiff and defendant David Clark stipulated to an extension of the deadline for

defendant Clark to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. However,

the stipulation failed to set the related deadlines for the opposition and reply briefs. The court

now sets the following briefing schedule for defendant Clark's dispositive motion: 

1. Defendant Clark must file and serve his motion for summary judgment or

other dispositive motion no later than August 1, 2007. 

2. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the summary judgment or

other dispositive motion no later than September 3, 2007. 

3. Defendant Clark must file and serve his reply brief, if any, no later than

September 14, 2007.

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties are reminded that all papers filed must be served on all other parties. For

example, plaintiff must send a copy of his opposition to both the attorney for defendant Clark,

as well as the attorney who represents the other defendants who have appeared in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/31/07 ___________ _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03252-SI Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 3