Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01450/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01450-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Paul Bashkin,

Plaintiff,

v.

San Diego County, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1450 AJB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION

TO VACATE SET ASIDE OR

RECONSIDER MAY 23, 2012 ORDER

[Doc. No. 157]

On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion, [Doc. No. 157], asking the Court to

vacate, set side or reconsider the Court’s Order of May 23, 2012, [Doc. No. 153]. The Court’s May 23,

2012 Order notified the Plaintiff that the second Pro-Bono counsel declined appointment and instructed

the Plaintiff to be prepared to proceed pro se for his trial set to begin on July 9, 2012 or face dismissal of

his claims for failure to prosecute.

In the ex parte motion, the Plaintiff argues that the Court’s Order of May 23, 2012 is: 1)

prejudicially erroneous; 2) misrepresents the basis for withdrawal of the first appointed pro bono

counsel; and 3) is unlawful because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) does not condition the appointment of pro

bono counsel on there being a volunteer willing to accept appointment.

The Court is not moved by the Plaintiff’s contention that the May 23, 2012 Order was “prejudicially erroneous” because the Court “mischaracterized the failure of each of its appointments as being

plaintiff’s fault, in order to justify revoking its prior order.” The first Pro Bono counsel filed a motion to

1 08cv1450

Case 3:08-cv-01450-AJB-WVG Document 159 Filed 06/19/12 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

withdraw citing: 1) an inability to reach unambiguous, timely agreement on legal claims and arguments

with the Plaintiff; and 2) an inability to achieve the cooperation necessary for Pro Bono Counsel to

effectively represent Plaintiff. See Doc. No. 145, at 1-2. The second Pro Bono Counsel that was

randomly selected notified the Court that he would decline appointment after attempts to contact the

Plaintiff to discuss a potential conflict of interest1 failed. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court declined to attempt any further appointments. The Court

finds Plaintiff’s alleged due process violations with regard to the appointment of counsel to be both

irrelevant and without merit. The Court once again takes this opportunity to remind the Plaintiff that

there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S.

18, 25, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991)

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiff’s contention that the

appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is not conditioned on a "volunteer"

willing to accept appointment as counsel for a civil plaintiff completely ignores the fact that the statute

does not authorize the federal courts to make coercive appointments of counsel. Although district courts

may “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here,

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) does not grant the court the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.”

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989).

The Plaintiff’s contention that the May 23, 2012 Order is unlawful because “there is no evidence

that any of those relevant circumstances have changed” is also without merit. Mr. Bashkin has clearly

demonstrated a pattern of uncooperative behavior2

 and repeated requests to delay the trial in this case.3

1

 The potential conflict of interest cited by the second Pro Bono Counsel was the prior lawsuit

brought by the Plaintiff against this counsel’s law partner.

2

 The Plaintiff failed to participate in any of the joint pretrial filings required by Order of this

Court and refused several attempts by the first appointed counsel to return of his original files after her

withdrawal.

3

 In September of 2011, the Plaintiff requested the Court postpone trial due to his medical

condition, however, the Plaintiff was present and argued vigorously his position during the motions in

limine hearing. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court postponed the January 3, 2012 trial date until

April 23, 2012 and requested appointment of counsel from the Pro Bono panel. Counsel was randomly

selected and appointed, however, subsequently problems led to counsel’s request to withdraw. The

Court again postponed the April 23, 2012 trial date to July 9, 2012 and again requested appointment of

Pro Bono counsel.

2 08cv1450

Case 3:08-cv-01450-AJB-WVG Document 159 Filed 06/19/12 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

This case was initially filed on August 8, 2008. The July 9, 2012 trial date is the third time a trial date

has been set in this case. The Court has made every attempt to accommodate the Plaintiff, however, the

Plaintiff’s uncooperative behavior and repeated delays have become prejudicial to defendants and the

timely resolution of this case. Based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is hereby

DENIED. The Plaintiff is expected to be prepared to proceed pro se for the trial in the case, which is set

to begin at 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2012, in Courtroom 12. There will be no further continuances of the trial

date. Mr Bashkin is warned that a failure to appear ready to proceed on the trial date will result in a

dismissal of the action for a failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

3 08cv1450

Case 3:08-cv-01450-AJB-WVG Document 159 Filed 06/19/12 Page 3 of 3