Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02672/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02672-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT C. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CA DEP’T CORR’S & REHAB, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-2672 MCE DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Before the court are plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time, for assistance

locating defendant Dr. Robert Anderson, and for the appointment of counsel. Because the court 

finds good cause to request the assistance of defendants’ counsel in locating Anderson, this court 

vacates the order requiring plaintiff to provide new service information for Anderson and denies 

plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time as moot. In addition, this court does not find 

appointment of counsel warranted at this juncture. 

MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE IN LOCATING DEFENDANT ANDERSON

This court found service of the complaint appropriate on defendants Adams, Church, and 

Anderson. Plaintiff originally submitted service documents for these defendants on July 1, 2019. 

(ECF Nos. 17, 18.) On July 12, this court ordered the United States Marshal to seek waiver of 

service from each defendant. (ECF No. 20.) On October 15, 2019, executed waivers of service 

Case 2:18-cv-02672-MCE-DB Document 39 Filed 03/16/20 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

were filed by defendants Adams and Church. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) On November 20, 2019, an 

unexecuted summons was returned for defendant Anderson. (ECF No. 26.) A notation on the 

summons states “Per CDCR they do not have a Robert Anderson.” 

In an order filed November 25, 2019, this court ordered plaintiff to provide additional 

information to serve defendant Anderson. (ECF No. 27.) On December 16, plaintiff submitted 

service documents for Anderson. (ECF No. 32.) However, plaintiff provided no address for 

service on Anderson. The court then gave plaintiff an additional thirty days to submit a proper 

form. (ECF No. 33.) 

On January 6, 2020, plaintiff submitted incomplete service forms and provided no 

explanation of what he had done to locate Anderson. (ECF No. 35.) In an order filed January 9, 

2020, this court again directed plaintiff to make efforts to locate an address for Anderson. (ECF 

No. 36.) 

On March 5, plaintiff filed the present motion for an extension of time and request for 

assistance in locating Anderson. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff explains that he and his spouse have 

attempted to search for Anderson through on-line searches and through contact with several 

governmental agencies. 

Because plaintiff has made significant efforts to locate Anderson, this court will direct 

defendants’ counsel to determine whether Anderson was employed by CDCR in 2017 when he 

worked at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). If he was, defendants’ counsel shall 

attempt to obtain either a forwarding address for Dr. Anderson or other identifying information, 

such as a medical license number. If Anderson worked at CHCF through a contracting agency, 

defendants’ counsel shall contact that agency in an attempt to locate similar information. The 

court notes that the records provided by plaintiff with his complaint show that the defendant’s 

name is Robert E. Anderson. (See ECF No. 1 at 51, 52, 53.) 

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel to assist him in locating defendant Anderson. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to 

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 

Case 2:18-cv-02672-MCE-DB Document 39 Filed 03/16/20 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

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

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 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Within twenty days of the filed date of this order, defendants’ counsel shall contact 

CDCR to determine whether Robert E. Anderson, M.D., was employed by CDCR in 2017 when 

he worked at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). If he was, defendants’ counsel shall 

attempt to obtain either a forwarding address for Dr. Anderson or other identifying information, 

such as a medical license number. If Dr. Anderson worked at CHCF through a contracting 

agency, defendants’ counsel shall contact that agency in an attempt to locate similar information. 

2. Within twenty-five days of the filed date of this order, defendants’ counsel shall file a 

document explaining the result of the contacts he made pursuant to paragraph 1.

3. The directive set out in the January 9, 2020 order for plaintiff to submit service forms 

for Anderson is vacated.

4. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is denied as moot.

5. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38) is denied, without 

prejudice.

Dated: March 13, 2020

DLB:9/DB/prisoner-civil rights/turn2672.31(2)

Case 2:18-cv-02672-MCE-DB Document 39 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 3