Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01532/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01532-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FELIPE VALADEZ, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. GILL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1532 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a request to 

continue his deposition. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff states that he needs to contact his criminal 

appellate attorney before being deposed. Id. He believes that while the appeal in his criminal 

conviction is pending, he needs get the “ok” from his appointed appellate counsel before he 

answers or signs anything. Id. 

This case was initiated by plaintiff on July 29, 2013. ECF No. 1. A Discovery and 

Scheduling Order, filed on March 14, 2014, set forth August 15, 2014 as the discovery deadline. 

ECF No. 28. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel so that he could have counsel present 

for his deposition was denied. See Order, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff has been previously reminded 

that he has brought this case and is obliged to litigate it. Id. In addition, by Order filed on May 

28, 2014, Judge Mueller denied plaintiff’s prior motion for a stay of these proceedings. ECF No. 

42 (adopting findings and recommendations, ECF No. 35, filed on April 15, 2014). Plaintiff does 

Case 2:13-cv-01532-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 10/06/14 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 

2

not specify how being deposed in a civil action he has initiated could compromise his criminal 

appeal. Plaintiff’s belated request for his deposition to be continued, made long after the 

discovery deadline, is not made for good cause and will be denied. 

Latest Request for Appointment of Counsel 

 Plaintiff has repeatedly sought appointment of counsel in this matter. See ECF Nos. 5, 29, 

31. When plaintiff brought an untimely request for reconsideration of two requests for 

appointment of counsel that had been denied by the undersigned, the district judge denied 

reconsideration by Order filed on July 21, 2014. ECF No. 47. Nevertheless, once again, plaintiff 

seeks appointed counsel. 

As plaintiff has been informed on several occasions, the United States Supreme Court has 

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 

cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional 

circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel); Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 

1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law 

library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for 

voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff seeks counsel, stating that he is an “American with a disability,” has some 

mobility impairment, and is placed in the CCCMS level of mental health care.1 Plaintiff has 

 

1

 “The CCCMS level of care is for inmates whose symptoms are under control or in partial 

remission and can function in the general prison population, administrative segregation, or 

segregated housing units.” Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882, 903 n. 24 (E.D. 

Cal. 2009) 

Case 2:13-cv-01532-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 10/06/14 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 

3

previously been informed that his desire to have counsel for his deposition and the fact that he 

takes psychotropic medication are not exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of 

counsel. ECF No. 30; see also, Order at ECF No. 35 at 2. Nor does deafness in plaintiff’s left ear 

require appointment of counsel. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff’s mobility impairment and CCCMS 

placement reflect challenges to which the court is not insensitive, but pro se inmates frequently 

have to deal with challenges of this nature in prosecuting their prisoner civil rights actions. 

The court has found that the instant complaint states a cognizable claim for relief as to 

plaintiff’s claims of the use of excessive force on two occasions by defendants who are West 

Sacramento Police Officers. The court has also previously noted that while it appeared that 

plaintiff had a reasonable chance of succeeding on his claims, the undersigned was unable to 

evaluate his likelihood of success on the merits at this point. See ECF Nos. 30, 35. It has also 

been observed by this court that the legal issues do not appear to be complex. Id. The 

circumstances relevant to these factors have not changed, and do not support the appointment of 

counsel. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 26, 2014 requests to 

continue his deposition and for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 48) are denied. 

DATED: October 6, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01532-KJM-AC Document 49 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 3