Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00702/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00702-1/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 - 10cv702-WQH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN THOMAS MILLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-702-WQH

(BGS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

& 

(2) EXTENDING TIME FOR

SERVICE BY 60 DAYS

vs.

JOHN LAMONTAGNE, Factory

Superintendent; RICHARD O

BUTCHER, Medical Doctor; JOSE E

OTERO, Medical Doctor; and DAVID G

SMITH, Medical Doctor,

Defendants.

On July 7, 2010, Plaintiff Justin Thomas Miller, a prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc.

No. 17.) This is Plaintiff’s second request to appoint counsel. (See Doc. No. 3.) On May 10,

2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first request. (Doc. No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below,

the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s current motion for appointment of

counsel. 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is incarcerated and is unable to

provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the home addresses of the Defendants. (Doc. No. 17.)

After attempting to serve all four Defendants at the address for Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility, summons were returned unexecuted, as the litigation coordinator for

Case 3:10-cv-00702-WQH-BGS Document 21 Filed 08/02/10 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 - 10cv702-WQH

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility indicated that none of the Defendants were employed

at the facility. (See Doc. Nos. 9-12.) On July 2, 2010, summons were returned executed as

to Defendants Richard O. Butcher and Jose E. Otero. (Doc. Nos. 15-16.) Two of the four

named Defendants in this case have therefore been served with the complaint. 

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349,

1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360,

1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation

omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of

counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United

States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to

“request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional

circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.

2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff

seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on

the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

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. The Court previously denied

Plaintiff’s request and nothing has substantially changed in this case since that time to change

the Court’s analysis. Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims, as the Court

found that Plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte

screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See Doc. No. 7 at 4.)

Additionally, Plaintiff has been able to serve two of the four named defendants with a

Case 3:10-cv-00702-WQH-BGS Document 21 Filed 08/02/10 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 - 10cv702-WQH

summons and complaint after the initial summons to these defendants were returned

unexecuted. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to identify and locate defendants. The Court finds

that Plaintiff’s difficulty in locating and serving defendants pro se is not based on the

complexity of the legal issues involved but rather on the general difficulty of litigating pro se.

See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, “If all that was

required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration

of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal

issues.”). 

In light of Plaintiff’s difficulties in serving defendants, the Court, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. 4(m), will extend the time for service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff’s

complaint was filed on April 1, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.) Therefore, the 120 days for service under

Rule 4(m) expired on July 30, 2010. Plaintiff shall have an additional sixty (60) days from the

date of this order to attempt to successfully serve Defendants Lamontagne and Smith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 2, 2010

_________________________________

BERNARD G. SKOMAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00702-WQH-BGS Document 21 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3