Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01408/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01408-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE W. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JHAMOU, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01408-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DENYING, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff Antoine W. Harris is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 16, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 7.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a 

first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order. (Id. at 9.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a first 

amended complaint and Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed on January 

30, 2020. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs an extension of time to file a first amended 

complaint and the Court should appoint counsel to represent him because the issues involved in 

this case are complicated, he does not have any access to a law library, and he does not have the 

legal knowledge to understand how to correctly amend his complaint to satisfy the Court’s 

standards.

Case 1:19-cv-01408-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 4
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

With regards to Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, the Court finds good cause to 

grant the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). However, the Court notes that the 

January 16, 2020 screening order set forth the relevant pleading and legal standards for Plaintiff, 

including the required elements necessary to plead cognizable claims for deliberate indifference 

to serious medical needs, Monell liability, and for holding a private hospital that contracted with 

the California prison system liable under § 1983. These matters are fact-based, and, thus, legal 

research is not required to comply with the screening order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an 

extension of time is granted.

With regards to Plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff does not 

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s second request for appointed counsel, but, once 

again, does not find the required exceptional circumstances. First, circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to 

hire counsel, do not alone establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant 

appointment of counsel. Second, Plaintiff’s apprehension with pursuing this case on his own, 

while understandable, is not sufficient grounds for appointing counsel. See Wilborn v. 

Case 1:19-cv-01408-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further 

facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the 

facts necessary to support the case.”). 

Third, “a plaintiff’s statement that he lacks law library access, standing alone, will not 

automatically result in the appointment of counsel.” Pleasant v. Warner, No. 3:19-cv-05249-

RJB-JRC, 2019 WL 2357929, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 4, 2019); see also Williams v. 

Waddington, No. C07-5216-RBL-KLS, 2007 WL 2471674, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2007); 

Moore v. Philips, No. 10-cv-3273, 2010 WL 5067823, at *1-2 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2010). Fourth, 

while Plaintiff alleges that the issues involved in this case are complex, the Court has reviewed 

Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff’s claims do not appear to present novel or complex 

issues of substantive law, and that Plaintiff is able to clearly articulate his claims. Fifth, and

finally, Plaintiff has not established that he has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of any of 

his claims. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a first amended complaint, (ECF 

No. 8), is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk’s office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s January 

16, 2020 screening order; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend to the District 

Judge that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, 

and failure to obey a court order; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01408-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/03/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

5. Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 8), is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01408-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 02/03/20 Page 4 of 4