Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04395/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04395-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW S. GUILLORY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4395 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

SECOND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Andrew S. Guillory, a state prisoner, filed this

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

In an Order dated March 22, 2006, the Court found Plaintiff's

claims cognizable and directed the Clerk of the Court to serve

Defendants. The served Defendants have answered the complaint. 

Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment on October 23,

2006.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's second request for the

appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. The Court

previously denied Plaintiff's first request for appointment of

counsel (docket no. 40). In the present motion, Plaintiff states

that he cannot litigate this action on his own behalf because of

his mental health needs. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case

unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he

loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services,

452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action),

withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952

Case 4:05-cv-04395-CW Document 43 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent

an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in "exceptional

circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation

of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the

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

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525;

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these

factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a

request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling

Plaintiff to court appointed counsel do not exist. The likelihood

of Plaintiff's success on the merits cannot be ascertained at this

point in the proceedings, and the legal issues are not complex. 

Moreover, although Plaintiff suffers from mental health

complications, he has been able to articulate his claims adequately

pro se in light of the complexity of the issues involved. See

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th

Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Plaintiff's second request for the

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for summary

judgment is presently overdue. Because Plaintiff filed a second

request for appointment of counsel pending the filing of his

opposition, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time. The

time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants'

Motion for Summary Judgment will be extended up to and including

August 31, 2007. 

Case 4:05-cv-04395-CW Document 43 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no

later than fifteen (15) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition

is filed.

 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be deemed

submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No further

extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

This Order terminates Docket no. 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/1/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04395-CW Document 43 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLORY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-04395 CW 

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 August 1, 2007, 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.

Andrew S. Guillory F-03860

Mule Creek State Prison

C-13-140-UP

P.O. Box 409060

Ione, CA 95640

Monika L. Cooper

County of Contra Costa

651 Pine Street

9th Floor

Martinez, CA 94553

Dated: August 1, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-04395-CW Document 43 Filed 08/01/07 Page 4 of 4