Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04229/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04229-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Three other defendants were successfully served; their motion for summary judgment

is pending. Service could not be effected on Hamlet because he retired.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILTON SYKES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES HAMLET, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4229 MMC (PR) 

ORDER RE: UNSERVED

DEFENDANT; TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 50)

On October 6, 2004, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28, 2006, the Court ordered

plaintiff “to effectuate service on defendant James Hamlet or provide the Court with his

accurate current location, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed.”1

 On

November 1, 2006, plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to comply with the

September 28, 2006 Order. On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion”

wherein plaintiff includes a “request for service”; plaintiff states therein that prison rules, for

security reasons, prohibit his access to the home addresses of prison employees; he requests

that defendants or their attorney, the California Attorney General, provide defendant

Hamlet’s current address to the Court. 

The Court construes plaintiff’s request as a motion for discovery and, good cause

appearing, hereby directs defendants, if they or their counsel are in possession of Hamlet’s

current address, to either submit that information to the Court on or before December 1,

Case 3:04-cv-04229-MMC Document 51 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2006, or, by that date, show cause why they should not be required to do so. The information

may be submitted under seal and subject to a protective order that it not be disclosed to

plaintiff or the public. If neither defendants nor their counsel are in possession of Hamlet’s

current address, defendants shall so notify the Court on or before December 1, 2006.

By the instant “Notice of Motion,” plaintiff, for the second time, has requested

appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as

this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915, a district court has the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who

is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff shall not continue to file

requests for appointment of counsel. As the Court informed plaintiff previously, should the

circumstances of the case materially change such that appointment of counsel becomes

warranted, the Court will reconsider plaintiff’s request for counsel sua sponte. The request

for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 50. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04229-MMC Document 51 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2