Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01427/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DEWAYNE BEARDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER LEE,

Defendant.

_______________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-1427 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT

TO COMPLY WITH JUNE 8, 2005

ORDER; DENYING APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 12)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in a California prison, filed the

above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant, a prison doctor, for

allegedly providing inadequate medical care. By order filed June 8, 2005, the Court found

plaintiff’s claim cognizable, and ordered the complaint served on defendant. The Court further

ordered defendant to file a dispositive motion or, alternatively, to notify the Court that he was

of the opinion that the case could not be resolved by a dispositive motion, such motion or

notification to be filed no later than 60 days thereafter. Contrary to the Court’s order,

however, defendant has filed neither a dispositive motion nor the alternative notification.

Accordingly, within 10 days of the date this order is filed, defendant shall comply with

the Court’s order of June 8, 2005, which compliance may include a request for an extension of

time as provided therein. Additionally, within 10 days of the date this order is filed, defendant

shall show cause for defendant’s failure to comply with said order in a timely manner.

Plaintiff has filed a request for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right

Case 3:05-cv-01427-MMC Document 15 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25

(1981). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court has the power to "request" that

counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). To

date, plaintiff has been able to present his claims, which do not appear to be particularly

complex, in an adequate manner, and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting

appointment of counsel at this time. Should the circumstances of the case materially change,

the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s request sua sponte.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2005

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01427-MMC Document 15 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2