Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-07019/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-07019-4/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

MAURICE W. HOOKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. GOMEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-07019-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Men’s Colony, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various constitutional violations by prison staff stemming

from his previous incarceration at the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”). On March 5, 2018, 

the Court reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that, liberally construed, it stated a 

cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to safety as against CTF correctional officer I. Gomez. 

Defendant Gomez has filed a motion for summary judgment. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s 

second request for appointment of counsel.

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). Here, exceptional 

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment 

of counsel is therefore DENIED. The Court will consider appointment of counsel on its own 

motion, and seek volunteer counsel to agree to represent plaintiff pro bono, if it determines at a 

later time in the proceedings that appointment of counsel is warranted.

Case 4:16-cv-07019-HSG Document 41 Filed 10/23/18 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

Plaintiff is reminded that his opposition to the motion for summary judgment is due on or 

before October 30, 2018. The Court notes that on October 12, 2018, plaintiff filed a document 

titled “Plaintiff’s Respond to Defendants’ Rand Warning Regarding Upcoming Trial.” See Dkt. 

No. 39. If plaintiff does not file an opposition to the summary judgment motion by October 30, 

2018, his October 12, 2018 filing will be construed as his opposition.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/23/2018

Case 4:16-cv-07019-HSG Document 41 Filed 10/23/18 Page 2 of 2