Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06132/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06132-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SANDOVAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06132-JD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 169, 172

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On June 11, 2014, the previous judge assigned to this case granted in part and denied in 

part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 88. The case proceeds on an Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Blair, an Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim against defendants Espinosa and Sandoval, and an Eighth Amendment medical 

claim against defendant Nunley. The case was referred to mediation, but the case did not settle. 

Counsel was appointed for plaintiff and the case was scheduled for trial. Later the order 

appointing counsel was vacated and the case continued with plaintiff proceeding pro se and 

preparing for trial. On June 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, to refer the 

case to settlement, and to appoint counsel. On July 15, 2015, the previous judge issued a recusal 

order and the case was reassigned to the undersigned.

The Court’s June 11, 2014, order regarding summary judgment found disputed facts as to 

the remaining defendants and claims. Plaintiff presents the same facts in his motion for summary 

judgment that the Court considered in the prior motion. Defendants filed an opposition presenting 

the same facts and argue that summary judgment should be denied because there remain material 

issues of fact in dispute. For the same reasons set forth in the prior order concerning summary 

Case 3:12-cv-06132-JD Document 187 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

judgment, plaintiff’s motion is denied because there remain material issues of fact in dispute.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting a referral to mediation and appointment of 

counsel. Docket No. 172. Yet, the body of the motion does not discuss the appointment of 

counsel. Counsel was previously appointed but the order was vacated at plaintiff’s request. The 

Court can refer this case for the possibility of the appointment of counsel, but plaintiff must 

indicate that he indeed wants counsel appointed for trial. The Court has limited resources to 

appoint counsel and can only make an appointment if the plaintiff desires counsel and will 

cooperate.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 169) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for mediation and appointment of counsel (Docket No. 172) is 

DENIED without prejudice. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order plaintiff must file 

an order indicating if he seeks the appointment of counsel. The Court will decide on the referral to 

mediation after the counsel issue has been determined.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-06132-JD Document 187 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SANDOVAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06132-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 22, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Condalee Morris ID: V96203

Calif. State Prison, Sacramento

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671 

Dated: October 22, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:12-cv-06132-JD Document 187 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 3