Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185-2/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

VINCENT JACOBO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MINOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05185-JSC 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SUBMIT IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION RE. UNSERVED 

DEFENDANTS; GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Dkt. Nos. 14, 17, 18

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The amended complaint names four defendants: San Francisco Sheriff’s 

Department employees working at the jail who allegedly used excessive force against Plaintiff. 

The Court previously found the claims cognizable and ordered the United States Marshal to serve 

the four defendants at the jail. Service was executed upon Defendants Lieutenant Minor and 

Deputy Neu. Service could not be completed upon Defendants Deputy Jones and Deputy Gray 

because there are multiple employees at the jail with those last names and Plaintiff did not provide 

further identifying information for them. 

Plaintiff has written to the Court asking what he should do about the unserved Defendants. 

Plaintiff must submit to the Court sufficient information about Defendants Jones and Gray to 

allow them to be identified and served, such as their first and middle names, first and middle 

initials, and/or badge numbers. Plaintiff must provide this information to the Court or show cause 

why he cannot within 28 days of the date this order is filed or the claims against them will be 

dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no constitutional right 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 19 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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

to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Section 

1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is 

proceeding in forma pauperis, not the power to “appoint” counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues, at least at this stage, are not 

complex. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow sufficient means for Plaintiff to seek and 

obtain discovery, including written depositions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, 36. If the 

circumstances of this case materially change, this decision will be reconsidered by the Court on its 

own motion; Plaintiff should not continue to request appointment of counsel. 

The request for an extension of time by Defendants Neu and Minor in which to file an 

answer is GRANTED to and including May 29, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015

___________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 19 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2