Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04098/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04098-1/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

CURTIS VAUGHN JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. BINKELE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04098-EMC 

ORDER

Docket Nos. 16, 19, 21

A. Request For Appointment Of Counsel 

Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district 

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of 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. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 

deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances are not present at 

this time. The Court is unable to say that there is a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff 

has been able to adequately articulate his claims and those claims do not involve complex legal 

issues. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action therefore is 

DENIED. Docket No. 16.

B. Service of Process On Defendant Muniz

Service of process was ordered on eleven defendants in this pro se prisoner’s civil rights 

action. Ten defendants have appeared but defendant warden Muniz has not yet been served with 

process. The summons and service documents that were sent to warden Muniz listed his name as 

Case 3:18-cv-04098-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/16/19 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

“warden M. L. Muniz” as that was the name provided by plaintiff. The Marshal reported to the 

Court that warden Muniz was not successfully served and remarked: “According to institution –

do not have an [crossed out] They do have a ‘W. L. Muniz.’” Docket No. 17.1

Plaintiff then requested that service be attempted on warden W. L. Muniz. Docket No. 19. 

Plaintiff’s request for service on W. L. Muniz is GRANTED. Docket No. 19. In order to move 

this case toward resolution:

1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the documents in the 

case file upon warden W. L. Muniz at Salinas Valley State Prison.

2. Muniz must file an answer to the complaint or a waiver of reply, see 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(g), no later than thirty days after he is served with the summons and complaint, 

regardless of whether he intends to file a dispositive motion.

C. Scheduling For Dispositive Motions

Defendants have requested an extension of the deadline to file a dispositive motion. Upon 

due consideration, Defendants’ request is GRANTED, although the Court will grant an extension 

lesser than the 5+ months Defendants have requested because a few months is sufficient time for 

diligent counsel to prepare a dispositive motion. Docket No. 21. The Court now sets the 

following new briefing schedule: No later than June 21, 2019, Defendants must file and serve a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary 

///

///

///

///

///

 

1 The Court is disappointed to see this sort of pointless waste of tax dollars by the person who 

refused service for the Defendant who was identified by the proper title and last name with the 

only defect being an incorrect initial for his first name. The Court is even more disappointed to 

see defense counsel rely on this sort of service of process problem as one of the reasons to grant an 

extension of the deadline for dispositive motions.

Case 3:18-cv-04098-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/16/19 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

judgment or other dispositive motion must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no 

later than July 19, 2019. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and 

served no later than August 2, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04098-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/16/19 Page 3 of 3