Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01500-28/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Fratus, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sergeant Peterson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1500-ROS

ORDER

Plaintiff John Fratus has filed three motions. First, Plaintiff requests “court

intervention” in the form of ordering his return to the California State Prison-Sacramento and

the return of his legal property. Second, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to allow him to

prepare for the upcoming evidentiary hearing. And third, Plaintiff seeks an order directing

his previously appointed counsel to continue to assist him in this case. Plaintiff’s former

counsel seeks an order allowing him to withdraw. 

In responding to Plaintiff’s first two motions, Defendants indicate Plaintiff has now

been returned to California State Prison-Sacramento and has access to his legal property.

(Doc. 183). Plaintiff was returned to that location, and regained access to his legal property,

on December 24, 2014. Therefore, Plaintiff will have time to prepare for the January 30,

2015 hearing and his first and second motions will be denied. As for Plaintiff’s request

regarding counsel, the Court previously appointed counsel “for the limited purpose of

preparing for and presenting the case at trial.” (Doc. 118). With trial complete, that counsel

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 187 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

need not continue to assist Plaintiff. Plaintiff has demonstrated he is able to articulate his

claims and, at present, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success. Thus,

“exceptional circumstances” do not exist requiring the Court appoint counsel. See Palmer

v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] court may under ‘exceptional

circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1).”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Court Intervention (Doc. 181), Motion for 30-Day

Extension of Time (Doc. 182), and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 184) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Doc. 185) is

GRANTED.

DATED this 16th day of January, 2015.

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 187 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2