Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01133/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01133-8/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

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

DAVID B. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1133-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this civil action, with the Second

Amended Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, sections 815.6, 820, and 844.6

of the California Government Code, and the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff alleges he was

subject to excessive force by San Diego County Sheriff’s Deputies at the San Diego

County Central Jail on March 21, 2013. Plaintiff’s only remaining claim in this action

is for excessive force, as to Defendants Seeley, Balay, Torres, Warren, Norie, and

Saunders. (ECF No. 104 at 21).

I. Procedural History

On January 19, 2016, the Court adopted in part and not adopted in part the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal. (ECF No. 104). In the

Order, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s

Second and Third claims, as well as all claims against San Diego County. Id. at 21. 

The Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s

- 1 - 13cv1133-WQH-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 160 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

First Claim of excessive force as to Defendants Seeley, Balay, Torres, Warren, Norie,

and Saunders. Id. The Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

regarding qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s First Claim of excessive force as to

Defendants Seeley, Balay, Torres, Warren, Norie, and Saunders. Id.

On August 3, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a trial date, and

setting deadlines for motions in limine, trial memos, proposed jury instructions,

proposed verdict forms, any proposed jury voir dire questions, and a joint statement of

the case. (ECF No. 126). On August 22, 2016, Defendants filed two Motions in limine. 

(ECF Nos. 128, 129). On September 2, 2016, Defendants filed Proposed Voir Dire,

Proposed Special Verdict Form, Proposed Jury Instructions, Trial Brief, and

Defendants’ Proposed Joint Statement of the Case. (ECF Nos. 132, 133, 134, 135,

136). On October 4, 2016, the Court held a status hearing, and the Court set a motion

in limine hearing for November 14, 2016. (ECF No. 138).

On October 31, 2016, the Court issued an order vacating the motion in limine

hearing date and trial date. (ECF No. 141). On November 22, 2016, the Court issued

an order appointing Pro Bono Counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

(ECF No. 143). On December 15, 2016, the Court issued an order granting substitution

of attorney for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 144).

On February 7, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in

part Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 154). The Court denied

Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery, but the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to

extend the date for Plaintiff to file dispositive motions and ordered that it would extend

the deadline for both parties to file motions in limine, trial memos, proposed jury

instructions, proposed verdict forms, proposed jury voir dire questions and to file any

joint statement of the case. Id. at 7. On March 23, 2017, the Court granted the motion

for Plaintiff’s former Pro Bono Counsel to withdraw as attorney of record in this case. 

(ECF No. 158).

II. Appointment of Counsel

- 2 - 13cv1133-WQH-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 160 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

While there is no right to counsel in a civil action, a court may under

“exceptional circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent

any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must consider both “‘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 complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).

Applying these standards to this case, the Court has elected to exercise its

discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and has located volunteer pro bono

counsel, attorney David W. Beaudreau, for purposes of representing Plaintiff under the

provisions of this Court’s “Plan of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California for the Representation of Pro se Litigants in Civil Cases” and

General Order 596. The Plan specifically provides for appointment of pro bono counsel

“as a matter of course in each prisoner civil rights case where summary judgment has

been denied.” Id. In this case, while Plaintiff is not a prisoner, he is proceeding to trial

as an unassisted layperson just as he would if summary judgment had been denied. 

Therefore, the Court concludes that the ends of justice would be served by the

appointment of pro bono counsel under the circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1);

S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596.

III. Conclusion and Order

Pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3(f)(2), Pro Bono Counsel shall file, within

fourteen (14) days of this Order if possible, a formal written Notice of Substitution of

Attorney signed by both Plaintiff and his newly appointed counsel. After the Court

signs the Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney, Pro Bono Counsel shall

thereafter be considered attorney of record for Plaintiff for all purposes during further

proceedings before this Court, in this matter only, and at the Court’s specific request.

See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3(f)(1), (2).

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to send David W. Beaudreau

- 3 - 13cv1133-WQH-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 160 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

a copy of this Order via email at DWB@KurtDavidHermansen.com, and serve David

W. Beaudreau with a copy of this order upon filing at the following address: Law Office

of Kurt David Hermansen; 550 West C Street, Suite 580; San Diego, CA 92101. See

S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3(f)(2).

DATED: April 11, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv1133-WQH-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 160 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4