Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554-19/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

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06554-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, SANCTIONS,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL

(Doc. 83)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

PRETRIAL STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE

WITH SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER ON

OR BEFORE MARCH 3, 2008, AND

EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL

STATEMENT DEADLINE FROM FEBRUARY

29, 2008, TO MARCH 7, 2008

Plaintiff James L. Thompson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 23, 2006, against defendants Morales, David,

Martinez, Reynoso, and Masiel (“defendants”) under section 1983 for use of excessive physical force

and for retaliation, and under state law for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional

distress. Jury trial is currently set for April 21, 2008. Plaintiff’s claims arise from an incident at

California State Prison-Corcoran on June 24, 2003, in which defendants allegedly beat plaintiff and

pepper sprayed him, in retaliation for filing lawsuits and complaints against staff. 

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 86 Filed 02/13/08 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 Identified as motion for summary disposition. 1

2

On January 25, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel, sanctions

against defendants for failure to provide discovery, and summary judgment. Plaintiff also seeks a 1

continuance of the trial date pending resolution of his motion.

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 an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, 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. 

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 claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

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

it is assumed 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 court cannot conclude that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,

and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot

adequately articulate his claims. Id. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel

must be denied. 

By the court’s order of October 25, 2007, and the orders issued concurrently with this order,

plaintiff’s outstanding motion to compel and motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior ruling

on his motion to compel have been resolved. Defendants did not fail to provide plaintiff with any

discovery to which he is entitled and there are no grounds for the imposition of sanctions against

defendants. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 86 Filed 02/13/08 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

The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions,such as a motion for summary judgment,

has expired. Further, plaintiff’s bare request for summary judgment is not sufficient to meet

plaintiff’s burden as the party moving for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Local Rule 56-260. Plaintiff’s

motion is denied.

Finally, plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the trial date pending a ruling on this motion

is denied as moot in light of this order. The deadline for plaintiff to file his pretrial statement was

February 1, 2008. The court previously provided plaintiff with a copy of Local Rule 16-281, which

sets forth the requirements for the pretrial statement. Plaintiff shall file his pretrial statement in

compliance with the Second Scheduling Order on or before March 3, 2008. The deadline for

defendants to file their pretrial statement is extended to March 7, 2008.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of sanctions is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of trial is DENIED;

5. Plaintiff shall file his pretrial statement in compliance with the Second Scheduling

Order on or before March 3, 2008; and

6. The deadline for defendants to file their pretrial statement is extended from February

29, 2008, to March 7, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 86 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 3