Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00431/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00431-7/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MASA NATHANIAL WARDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. COWAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-00431-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s third motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 46. 

Plaintiff filed this motion on the date that his opposition brief to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 43) was due. Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief. Plaintiff is 

incarcerated, and is bringing his civil case as a self-represented litigant proceeding in forma 

pauperis. ECF No. 10. 

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, asserting he does not currently have 

access to the law library and does not have adequate access to evidence due to his incarceration. 

ECF No. 46 at 2. In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” 

United States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). 

“Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining 

whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on 

the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

Case 2:19-cv-00431-TLN-AC Document 47 Filed 08/18/20 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 

complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The undersigned already found twice that there are no exceptional circumstances in this 

case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. ECF Nos. 30, 37. Plaintiff presents no 

additional information that might alter the court’s decision. Accordingly, this third motion will 

be denied. However, based on the contents and timing of plaintiff’s motion, the court will 

liberally construe it to include a request for extended time to respond to defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff is hereby granted an extension until September 21, 2020, to file an 

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The reply brief deadline is extended 

accordingly. If plaintiff fails to file a timely opposition, the court will construe such failure as a 

statement of non-opposition. 

In conclusion, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. Plaintiff is 

granted until September 21, 2020 to oppose defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 17, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-00431-TLN-AC Document 47 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 2