Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01171-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON E. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUFFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1171 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a six month extension of time in which to file an opposition 

to defendants Low, Brewer, Brown, Hernandez, and Cruz’s February 10, 2015 motion to dismiss

his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff cites the following factors in support of 

his motion:

 The length and complexity of the motion to dismiss, and corresponding need for legal 

research.

 Chronic issues with his physical and mental health, and the side effects of his 

prescribed medication.

(ECF No. 31.) The court notes that, two weeks after plaintiff filed his request for an extension of 

time, defendant Guffee filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF 

No. 33.) The court infers that plaintiff will also be unable to timely file an opposition to 

defendant Guffee’s motion to dismiss for the same reasons that he is unable to timely oppose the 

Case 2:13-cv-01171-TLN-DAD Document 35 Filed 03/16/15 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

earlier-filed motion to dismiss.

While the court finds that good cause appears to grant plaintiff an extension of time, the 

length of time that plaintiff seeks is excessive. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff a twoand-a-half month extension of time in which to file oppositions to both of the pending motions to 

dismiss. Plaintiff is cautioned that no further extensions of time will be forthcoming.

Plaintiff has also requested that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority 

to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 

attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 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). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 

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

establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

In addition to such circumstances, plaintiff states that he suffers from chronic physical and 

mental health issues, and asserts that the side effects of his medication are debilitating. The court 

notes, however, that plaintiff is currently litigating at least three other cases in this judicial 

district: Morris v Virga, No. 2:10-cv-2069 GEB DAD, Morris v. Bradford, No. 2:11-cv-1171 

KJM DAD, and Morris v. Jennings, No. 2:13-cv-1134 MCE AC. Plaintiff has asserted similar 

factors in requesting appointment of counsel in these prior cases. For example, in Morris v. 

Virga, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel on May 23, 2013. This motion was 

denied a week later. Nevertheless, plaintiff was able to subsequently file both Morris v. Jennings

and the instant action, and has continued to litigate all four cases. In other words, plaintiff has 

demonstrated his ability to articulate and prosecute his claims pro se; accordingly, his health 

issues do appear to be so significant as to constitute exceptional circumstances.

Case 2:13-cv-01171-TLN-DAD Document 35 Filed 03/16/15 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

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 31) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is granted up to and including May 31, 2015, in which to file an opposition to 

defendants Low, Brewer, Brown, Hernandez and Cruz’s motion to dismiss. Defendants Low, 

Brewer, Brown, Hernandez and Cruz’s reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter.

3. Plaintiff is granted up to and including May 31, 2015, in which to file an opposition to 

defendant Guffee’s motion to dismiss. Defendant Guffee’s reply, if any, shall be filed within 

seven days thereafter.

4. No further extensions of time will be granted.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32) is denied without 

prejudice.

Dated: March 13, 2015

/morr1171.36+31kjn

Case 2:13-cv-01171-TLN-DAD Document 35 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 3