Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02820/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02820-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES GRZESLO,

CDCR #BB-2085

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; P. COVELLO; and

DR. JANE DOE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

ORDER: (1) GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 8, 10)

On December 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed his civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court conducted the required sua sponte screening of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. (See ECF 

No. 4.) The Court granted Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave to file an amended complaint 

in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. (Id.) 

I. Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint

On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request seeking additional time to comply 

with the Court’s January 25, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff contends he was 

“attacked and severely beaten” by other inmates during a “senseless prison riot” on 

February 15, 2019. (Id. at 2.) As a result, Plaintiff was hospitalized. (Id.) “‘Strict time 

Case 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL Document 11 Filed 03/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

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

limits . . . ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se . . . 

plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge v. 

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 

(9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED.

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint him counsel due to his indigence, lack 

of legal training, incarceration, and restrictions on his ability to access the prison’s law 

library. (ECF No. 8.)

All documents filed pro se are liberally construed, and “a pro se complaint, however 

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 

U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotations omitted)). But there is no constitutional right to 

counsel in a civil case; and none of Plaintiff’s pleadings to date demand that the Court 

exercise its limited discretion to request than an attorney represent him pro bono pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at this stage of the case. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs., 

452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 

2004). Only “exceptional circumstances” support such a discretionary appointment. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009). Exceptional circumstances exist where there is cumulative showing 

of both a likelihood of success on the merits and a demonstrated inability of the pro se 

litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal complexity. Id.

As currently pled, Plaintiff’s Complaint demonstrates that while he may not be 

formally trained in law, he nevertheless is fully capable of legibly articulating the facts and 

circumstances relevant to his claims, which are typical and not legally “complex.” 

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 8.)

///

Case 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL Document 11 Filed 03/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For good cause shown, the Court:

(1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff is 

given an additional sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is signed in which to 

comply with the Court’s January 25, 2019 Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended 

pleading within this time frame, the Court will dismiss this entire action for the reasons set 

forth in the January 25, 2019 Order and for failing to comply with a Court Order; and 

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 8.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL Document 11 Filed 03/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3