Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02216/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02216-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY J. HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER LITTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02216-JST (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Plaintiff Timothy J. Hanna, an inmate at Avenal State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against staff and officials at San Quentin State Prison ("SQSP"),

where he was previously incarcerated. The Court determined that the complaint stated a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against SQSP Correctional Officer Little for a violation of plaintiff's 

Eighth Amendment rights, and dismissed with leave to amend as to other claims and other 

defendants. See Dkt. No. 11. On December 1, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 

Before the Court had an opportunity to screen the amended complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for 

leave to amend. The Court construed the motion as a request to file a second amended complaint

("SAC"), which request was granted. Plaintiff's SAC is due on or before January 23, 2015.

Now before the Court is plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 19. One 

of the criteria the Court applies in determining whether to appoint counsel is the likelihood of 

success on the merits. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The 

Court cannot determine whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits until it sees the 

SAC. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

The Court also notes that plaintiff has a filed a "first request for production of documents." 

Dkt. No. 19. The request is premature as no defendant has yet been served in this action. Further, 

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

the filing reflects plaintiff's misunderstanding of the discovery process, as a party may not obtain 

discovery by simply telling the Court what he wants to learn. The Court generally is not involved 

in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties 

about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between 

the parties without any copy being sent to the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (listing discovery 

requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the Court until they are used in the proceeding 

or the Court orders otherwise). In sum, plaintiff must wait until one or more defendants are served 

before propounding discovery and, at such point, must send discovery requests directly to defense 

counsel and not to the Court.

This order terminates Docket No. 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2