Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01337/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01337-1/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 11cv1337 JLS (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MICHAEL MASON,

CDCR # P-44211 Civil

No. 

11-1337 JLS (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

D. J. SILVA,

Defendant.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Avenal State Prison

located in Avenal, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte

dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. See January 19, 2012 Order at 5-6. Plaintiff

was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading

identified by the Court. Id. On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint,

along with a Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 5
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 11cv1337 JLS (BGS)

II.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 9]

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however, unless an

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 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.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

III.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

As discussed in the previous Order, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and is a

“prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the Court must also review his Amended

Complaint sua sponte before service, and dismiss the entire action, or any part of his Amended

Complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants

who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but

requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A). 

Before amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the former 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 5
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 11cv1337 JLS (BGS)

F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

mandate that the court reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to

dismiss before effecting service of the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.

4(c)(3). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604-05

(6th Cir. 1997) (stating that sua sponte screening pursuant to § 1915 should occur “before

service of process is made on the opposing parties”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194

(9th Cir. 1998) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, the Court has a duty to liberally construe a pro se’s

pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988),

which is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261

(9th Cir. 1992). In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, however, the

court may not “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board

of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are now sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is

entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in

[IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United

States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and

dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6)

motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119

(S.D. Cal. 2007).

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 5
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

4 11cv1337 JLS (BGS)

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 9] is DENIED without

prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint upon

the Defendant and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for this

Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order, the Court’s

January 19, 2012 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, and copies of his First Amended

Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP

Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as

possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided

by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall

serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and summons upon the Defendant as directed by

Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

3. Defendant is thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted

to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary

determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits,” Defendants are required to respond). 

4. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by counsel,

upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 5
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

5 11cv1337 JLS (BGS)

Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any

document was served on Defendant, or counsel for Defendant, and the date of service. Any

paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a

Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 16, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 10 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 5