Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SCHULTZ,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILTATION, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00988-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

DISCOVERY SUBPOENA AND 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, and (2) 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS TO 

MAKE REQUISITE SHOWING 

REGARDING DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff Kenneth Schultz, a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison 

(CSP), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on a claim of medical indifference against Defendant 

Kim M.D.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff seeks discovery from an alleged percipient witness, Ms. Lawrence, who he 

asserts was a CSP medical staff member at times relevant to his case.. Defendant objected 

to Plaintiff’s August 6, 2013 Request for Production of Documents and Witness 

Acknowledgement of Statements on grounds it was not directed to a proper responding 

party. Plaintiff did not move to compel a further response. 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 48 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s February 7, 2014 Request for Witness Deposition 

on Written Interrogatories on the above ground and because there is no authority for such 

discovery. Plaintiff did not move to compel a further response.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking (1) a deposition subpoena to compel 

Ms. Lawrence to respond to written interrogatories, and (2) appointment of counsel. 

Defendant filed opposition. Plaintiff replied to the opposition. 

The deadline to complete discovery was April 1, 2014. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Discovery Subpoena

Subject to certain requirements, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is 

entitled to issuance of a subpoena to depose a nonparty, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and to service 

of the subpoena by the United States Marshal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, the Court 

will consider granting such a request only if the information sought is not equally available 

to the plaintiff and is not obtainable from the defendant by deposition by written questions. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. Here Plaintiff seeks testimony of a percipient witness who allegedly 

participated in the administrative appeal which underlies Plaintiff’s claim. As noted, Plaintiff 

requested this discovery from Defendant who objected apparently in part on the ground 

that the discovery request must be directed to the non-party witness, Ms. Lawrence, rather 

than to Defendant Kim. Defendant argues, correctly, that the Rules do not require him to 

take the deposition of Ms. Lawrence or to schedule it for Plaintiff. 

There are procedures for a party to depose a witness via written questions. Such a

deposition must be conducted in compliance with Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Among other things, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the party noticing 

the deposition is required to provide the questions to an “officer,” as that term is defined in 

Rule 28(a), who will take the deponent's responses to the questions, certify them, and send 

them to the noticing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5).

There also are procedures for a party to depose a witness via oral questions at 

deposition and for compelling the witness to attend by subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1); 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 48 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. 

The Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to send Plaintiff a copy of Rules 30, 31 and 

45. If, after reviewing the Rules, Plaintiff believes he is able to locate and depose Ms. 

Lawrence in compliance with the Rules, Plaintiff shall notify the Court within thirty days and 

make a showing, under penalty of perjury, that he is able and willing to retain and 

compensate an officer to take written or oral responses and prepare the record. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 31(b). At that juncture, the Court will determine if action is appropriate to facilitate 

the deposition and modify scheduled deadlines.

B. 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), partially overruled on other grounds, 154 

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 

him 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). In certain exceptional circumstances 

the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, 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 of the merits [and] the ability of the 

[plaintiff] to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before reaching a decision on request for counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See 

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional 

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F. App’x 

830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”); Simmons v. 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 48 Filed 06/04/14 Page 3 of 5
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

Hambly, 14 F.App’x. 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough, 459 F.App’x 

601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional circumstances' required to 

appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”).

Plaintiff maintains he “has made several missteps and feels he is not appropriately 

representing his side of the case to the Court.” (ECF No. 44 at 3:15-16.) However, there 

are not exceptional circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. A determination 

cannot be made at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 

His sole claim in issue, medical indifference, does not appear to be novel or unduly 

complex. The facts alleged to date appear straightforward.

Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made 

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues 

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. The Court is not 

presently able to find that he cannot adequately articulate his claim.

Finally, Plaintiff makes no showing that he has exhausted diligent efforts to secure 

counsel.

1

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a copy of Rules 30, 31 and 45 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

2. Plaintiff’s motion filed March 28, 2014 requesting subpoena for deposition on 

written questions (ECF No. 44) is DENIED without prejudice, 

3. Plaintiff’s motion filed March 28, 2014 requesting appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 44) is DENIED without prejudice, and 

4. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order within which

 

1

See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. January 11, 2011) (cases cited).

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 48 Filed 06/04/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

to make the requisite showing regarding his ability to locate and depose Ms. 

Lawrence by written or oral questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 48 Filed 06/04/14 Page 5 of 5