Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185-4/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

VINCENT JACOBO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MINOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05185-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

LETTER MOTION; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT 

PARALEGAL AND TO EXTEND TIME

Dkt. Nos. 37, 42, 46

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. He claims that Defendants, four jail employees, used excessive force 

against him. The four Defendants have been served and have appeared. 1

Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint a paralegal and for a subpoena (Dkt. No. 37). He 

seeks a paralegal to conduct “a few” depositions, and the subpoena to obtain documents that he 

alleges Defendants have failed to provide in discovery. As for his request to “appoint” a paralegal, 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel 

represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, not the power to “appoint” counsel. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff does not identify whose depositions he wishes to take, or explain 

why written depositions and interrogatories will not suffice. Plaintiff has not shown that he is 

incapable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues of the case are not sufficiently 

complex that Plaintiff needs paralegal assistance. Plaintiff also does not identify what documents 

Defendants have not provided that he must obtain via a subpoena. In the prior order denying 

Plaintiff’s motions to compel, the Court detailed the discovery Defendants provided and the 

adequacy of their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Because Plaintiff does not identify 

 

1 All remaining parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §

636. (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 33.) 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 48 Filed 10/02/15 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

any additional documents that he has not, or will not, be able to obtain via discovery, no subpoena 

is necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Defendants have filed a motion (Dkt. No. 46) to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at a 

deposition on November 18, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. at the San Bruno jail, and for an extension of time 

to and including December 18, 2015, in which to file a dispositive motion. Plaintiff has agreed to 

these matters. (See Dkt. No. 47.) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s 

prior motion to postpone the date of his deposition (originally scheduled for August) is DENIED 

as unnecessary. (Dkt. No. 42.) Defendants also request a stay of discovery until the deposition is 

conducted, but they have not shown cause for granting such a stay. Accordingly, their request for 

a stay is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s request to have the Court inspect cameras at the county jail to verify 

Defendants’ evidence that those cameras do not record (see Dkt. No. 47 at 2; Bliss Decl. ¶ 5) is 

DENIED. Plaintiff also requests the results of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s Internal 

Affairs investigation into the incident underlying his complaint. (Id. at 1.) Defendants indicate 

that those results have been provided to Plaintiff. (Bliss Decl. ¶ 4.) If there remains a 

disagreement over whether there are additional reports or results of the Sheriff’s Department 

internal investigation that have not been provided to Plaintiff, the parties shall promptly meet and 

confer to resolve this disagreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 48 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2