Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02244/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02244-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16CV2244 DMS (BGS) 

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD CARLOS DIAZ, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV2244 DMS (BGS) 

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 36, 38]

Plaintiff Ronald Carlos Diaz, Sr. has filed a request for an extension of time to file 

a late Reply brief in support of his Motion to Amend and a Request for Appointment of 

Counsel. (ECF Nos. 36, 38.) 

I. Request for Extension of Time

In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff seeks to add two Defendants previously 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). On February 23, 2017, the 

Court set a briefing schedule on the Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 26.) It required the 

filing of an Opposition by March 10, 2017 and allowed Plaintiff to file a Reply brief by 

March 17, 2017. (Id.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 39 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16CV2244 DMS (BGS) 

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

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time indicates that he did not timely file his 

Reply because he did not receive a copy of the Court’s February 23, 2017 Order setting 

the briefing schedule on the Motion to Amend at the time it was issued. He also indicates

that he was transferred to a different facility where he was without any of his legal 

materials for two weeks followed by limited law library access. (ECF No. 36.) 

It is hard to determine whether Plaintiff has shown good cause for his delay 

because the request for an extension of time does not indicate when he received the 

Court’s briefing schedule. Additionally, the Court notes that the Motion is sufficiently 

briefed without the optional Reply brief. However, given Plaintiff’s incarceration, 

transfer to a different facility, and lack of access to his legal materials for a period of 

time, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff a brief extension to file his Reply in support of his 

Motion to Amend. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(explaining the courts should not insist upon strict time limits when “a pro se prisoner 

plaintiff’s incarceration prevent[s] timely compliance with court deadlines.”). However, 

given Plaintiff has been aware of the option to file a Reply for some time, the Court 

expects it will be filed promptly, on or before June 19, 2017. Additionally, the Court 

cautions Plaintiff that the Reply brief is limited to addressing only issues raised in the 

Opposition to his Motion to Amend. 

II. Appointment of Counsel

On April 24, 2017,

1 Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 

38.) He requests appointment of counsel because he is cannot afford to hire a lawyer, he 

has troubling understanding things, particularly legal materials, and his access to legal 

materials is limited. (Id. at 1.) 

 

1The Request for Appointment of Counsel was docketed on a later date than it was 

submitted to the Court. Deficiencies in that filing required the Court to review it before 

docketing and, although the Court accepted it for filing an error in the process resulted in 

it being docketed later. (ECF No. 37.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 39 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16CV2244 DMS (BGS) 

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

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

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially withdrawn on other grounds on 

reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998); 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). 

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. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 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 because Plaintiff has not 

shown that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate the basis for 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) as to one of the 

defendants. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has also been able to identify additional factual 

allegations he believes support his claims in his Motion to Amend to add two defendants 

and in explaining the basis for his claim against Defendant Dr. Sidighi in opposing 

Defendant Sidighi’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29.) Moreover, it does not appear 

that the legal issues presented by Plaintiff’s claims are so complex that counsel is 

warranted at this stage of the proceedings. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, “[i]f all that was required to establish successfully the 

complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of 

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 39 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16CV2244 DMS (BGS) 

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

further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02244-DMS-BGS Document 39 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4