Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CHAKER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2599-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

A STAY; AND DENYING AS

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ EX

PARTE MOTION TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

[Dkt. Nos. 83, 86.]

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, an individual;

Officer HERZIG, an individual; CITY

OF SAN DIEGO, a government entity;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and

request for a stay. Plaintiff argues thatsince the Court found good cause to appoint pro

bono counsel on May 12, 2014, and the appointed pro bono counsel withdrew as

counsel shortly thereafter, the Court should appoint another pro bono counsel who has

“expertise in civil rights litigation.” (Dkt. No. 83-1 at 3.) She asserts that she

continues to be treated for various medical issues and requests the appointment of

counsel to assist her in prosecuting this civil action and also requests a stay as she is

unable to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. 

Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

- 1 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 87 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 4
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

of counsel and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a stay. 

Discussion

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case

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). The United States

Supreme Court has held that the district courts lack authority to require counsel to

represent indigent prisonersin § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the district court

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) specifically

states that the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see also Pinson v. Equifax Credit Information

Servs., Inc., 316 Fed. Appx. 744, 749 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that plaintiffs initiated

the action through retained counsel, indicating that they were not so indigent as to be

unable to afford an attorney). 

In the Court’s prior order appointing pro bono counsel, the Court assumed that

Plaintiff had met the indigent standard required to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). In fact, Plaintiff had not met the standard. Therefore, recently in the

1

Court’s order filed on August 15, 2014, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to sent

an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) packet to Plaintiff and directed Plaintiff to file the

financial affidavit in the IFP packet on or before September 5, 2014 to demonstrate that

she is unable to afford counsel. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a financial affidavit

demonstrating that she is unable to afford counsel, which is a requirement for

appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

The Court notes that this was overlooked due to the fact that Plaintiff had retained counsel 1

when she initially filed the complaint. As such, Plaintiff did not file a motion for in forma pauperis 

when the complaint was filed as is the case with most pro se plaintiffs seeking appointment of counsel

in civil rights cases. 

- 2 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 87 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appointment counsel based

on her failure to meet the indigent requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In her

motion to appoint counsel, she indicated thatJones Day and Procopio Cory would take

the case if the Court appointed them. However, the appointment by the Court is not

required for these firms to represent Plaintiff. These firms may represent Plaintiff in

this case if they so choose. 

B. Plaintiff’s Request for a Stay

Plaintiff also requests a stay of the case stating that she is unable to file an

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution since she is

“disabled.” As part of her motion, she filed under seal a letter from her doctor. The

doctor recommended a four month stay in order to allow Plaintiff to address her

medical condition. Based on the doctor’s letter, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request

for a stay of four months until January 23, 2015. However, the Court notes that the

letter provides general statements as to her medical condition without specific details

about how her medical condition is affecting her ability to prosecute this case. Once

the stay expires, on January 28, 2015, Plaintiff shall file with the Court an update on

her medical condition and whether she can proceed with the case. If Plaintiff is unable

to proceed, on January 28, 2015, she shall also provide a doctor’s note specifically

stating her medical condition, including any medical findings or tests to support her

condition, any specific doctor’s orders or treatment plan that need to take place, and the

doctor’s prognosis as to when Plaintiff would be able to prosecute her case. 

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

- 3 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 87 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a temporary stay. The Court stays this

action for a period of four months. The stay shall expire on January 23, 2015. 

Based on the Court’s ruling, Defendants’ ex parte motion to continue the hearing

date on their motion to dismiss and the pretrial conference is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 26, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 87 Filed 09/26/14 Page 4 of 4