Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03820/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03820-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

RONALD BOLLING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden; LINA

MANGLIEMOT, RN; BARBARA

AMRHEIM, SRN II; J. ABOYTES and P.

G. DENNIS, Appeals Coordinators; and

N. GRANNIS, Chief, Inmate Appeals

Branch, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3820 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SERVICE AND MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; SCHEDULING

ORDER

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. In his amended

complaint plaintiff presented only one claim, against defendant Mangliemot, a nurse. He

alleged that she refused his request for medical care on a weekend; it turned out he was

having a stroke, which he contends has left him with slowness of speech, impaired

memory, and slow thought processes. In its screening order the court ordered service on

Mangliemot. After great difficulty in obtaining service, Mangliemot now has entered an

appearance by private counsel. As a result, plaintiff’s motion for a renewed attempt at

service on her (document number 23 on the docket) is DENIED as moot.

 Plaintiff also has moved for appointment of counsel. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel

represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of

counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

Case 4:07-cv-03820-PJH Document 29 Filed 08/23/10 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

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, and the issues are not

complex. The motion for appointment of counsel (document number 26 on the docket) is

DENIED. 

Defendant Mangliemot filed an answer on June 1, 2010. The court’s order of service

calculated the deadline for filing a dispositive motion from the date of service, which at this

point is not known to the court. In view of the age of this case, Mangliemot must file a

dispositive motion, or a notice that one is not in order, within thirty days of the date this

order is entered. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed within thirty days of the date of service

of the dispositive motion, and a reply, if any, is due within fifteen days of service of the

opposition. Requests for extensions of time are discouraged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\BOLLING432.aty.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-03820-PJH Document 29 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2