Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04136/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04136-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE BUTLER, P84515,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

EDMOND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-4136 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY COURT SHOULD NOT

APPOINT COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF

While plaintiff was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), he

filed the instant pro se prisoner action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that on October 12, 2013 Correctional Officer J. Rodriguez sprayed him

with pepper spray in his cell without provocation and, after plaintiff was treated

at the local medical center and returned to his contaminated cell, Sgt. G. Garcia

and Lt. G. Salazar denied/ignored his requests to be moved to a clean and

uncontaminated cell.

On February 24, 2015, the court found that, liberally construed, plaintiff’s

allegations state a cognizable § 1983 claim for damages against Rodriguez for

use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and a cognizable §

1983 claim for damages against Garcia and Salazar for deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s health and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and ordered

the U.S. Marshal to serve these three defendants. The court denied plaintiff’s

subsequent motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional

circumstances.

Case 3:14-cv-04136-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/28/15 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

On July 27, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and

dismissal of plaintiff’s cognizable § 1983 claims. Plaintiff responded by

renewing his motion for appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is

mentally ill and awaiting transfer to Atascadero State Hospital.

On September 25, 2015, the court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for

appointment of counsel. The court explained that “[p]laintiff clearly presented

his claims for relief in his complaint and an order of service issued. He also has

communicated effectively with the court, albeit with the assistance of other

inmates. Plaintiff should be able to continue to do so even if he is transferred to

another institution.” Dkt. #32 at 1. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to

file an opposition to defendants’ motion by no later than November 6, 2015.

But plaintiff instead has filed a motion to stay all proceedings pending a

competency hearing. In support, he submits evidence showing that he was

committed to Atascadero State Hospital based on a diagnosis of schizoaffective

disorder, bipolar type, and points out that he was deemed mentally ill and

appointed counsel in his federal habeas corpus proceedings in the Central District

of California. Plaintiff also claims that “obtaining any assistance of other

inmates and patients” at Atascadero State Hospital is not possible. Dkt. #38 at 2. 

Under the law of the circuit, “when a substantial question exists regarding

the competence of an unrepresented party the court may not dismiss with

prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court.” Krain v. Smallwood,

880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989). The court instead should (1) conduct a

hearing to determine whether the party is competent and appoint a guardian ad

litem if the party is not competent, or (2) appoint a lawyer to represent the party if

the party’s interests would be adequately protected by the appointment of a

lawyer. Id. 

Case 3:14-cv-04136-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/28/15 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

Under the circumstances, the court proposes appointing a lawyer to

represent plaintiff pro bono in this § 1983 prisoner action for damages because it

appears that plaintiff’s interests would be adequately protected by the

appointment of a lawyer without proceeding with a competency determination. 

See id. (appointment of a lawyer may obviate competency determination). Good

cause appearing therefor, within fourteen (14) days of this order, the parties shall

show cause why the court should not appoint counsel for plaintiff as proposed, or

otherwise indicate that appointment of counsel for plaintiff as proposed is in

order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

N:\Dec.2015\CRB\Butler, A.14-4136.osc_csl.wpd

12/28/2015

Case 3:14-cv-04136-CRB Document 39 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3