Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHIRLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 18)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ricky L. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 13, 2023, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 

found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Degough for deliberate indifference 

to conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other 

cognizable claims for relief against any other defendants. (ECF No. 13.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to 

proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court. (Id.) On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff 

notified the Court that he does not intend to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 14.)

Accordingly, on October 10, 2023, the Court issued findings and recommendations that 

this action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Degough for 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 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

2

deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 

that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon 

which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff was directed to file any objections to the 

findings and recommendations within fourteen days. (Id.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and request for 

appointment of counsel, filed November 2, 2023. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff requests an extension 

because he did not receive the findings and recommendations until October 27, 2023, due to 

being sent to another institution for a medical procedure. Plaintiff also requests assignment of cocounsel due to the nature and complexity of certain citations and degrees of law cited. (Id.)

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff is informed that he 

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 

1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 

However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 

would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 

almost daily by prisoners who must conduct legal research with limited resources. These 

plaintiffs also must litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. While the Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 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

3

complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim against Defendant Degough, this does not 

indicate a likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this 

case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

However, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of time. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6. Although Plaintiff has not specified the length of extension required, the Court finds 

that an extension of thirty days is appropriate in light of the delay in Plaintiff’s mail.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 18), is DENIED, without 

prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 18), is GRANTED; and

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file his

objections, if any, to the October 10, 2023, findings and recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 3