Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00416/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16-cv-416-BEN-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYNALDO MESTRE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OFFICER KRUMREI et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-416-BEN-JLB

ORDER:

(1) ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUESTS REGARDING 

DISCOVERY AND MOTION 

PRACTICE; and

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF Nos. 14, 16 ]

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s letters to the Court dated May 3, 2016, and 

May 4, 2016. (ECF Nos. 14 & 16.) In his letters, Plaintiff seeks assistance from the Court 

with respect to discovery, motion practice, and the appointment of counsel in this case.

The Court addresses each of Plaintiff’s requests below.

I. Request for Assistance With Discovery

In his letters, Plaintiff seeks assistance from the Court with respect to requesting and 

inspecting documents in Defendants’ possession. Specifically, Plaintiff’s May 3, 2016 

letter states in relevant part:

Case 3:16-cv-00416-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-416-BEN-JLB

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

I seek to obtain documents pertaining to prior complaints and allegations of 

any type of excessive force, citizen complaints, or anything relevant to my 

civil rights excess force claim.

(ECF No. 16 at 1–2.)

Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 letter states in relevant part:

I would like to know how I can request what I believe is called “Pitchess” 

Request to obtain Defendants San Diego Police Department Personnel file or 

it could be called an in camera review.”

(ECF No. 14 at 2.)

The Court is prohibited from providing legal advice to, or acting as counsel to, any 

party, and therefore it cannot provide Plaintiff with the specific assistance he seeks. The 

Court directs Plaintiff that any request for discovery must be prepared and served on 

Defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26–37. 

II. Request for Assistance with Motion Practice

Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 letter seeks assistance from the Court with respect to filing 

forms and following proper motion procedures. Specifically, Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 letter 

states in relevant part:

[M]y questions are since I am doing this whole process pro per and am not 

very savvy in the courts and cannot afford an attorney . . . . I ask if you or 

your office can please assist me in acquiring the correct forms or motion 

procedures so I may file or present to the Courts. 

(ECF No. 14 at 1–2.)

With respect to this request, the Court directs Plaintiff to visit the Court’s website, 

where all of the Court’s publicly available forms are located. Apart from what is available 

on the Court’s website, there are no other forms the Court may provide to Plaintiff. 

III. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 letter also inquires whether Plaintiff may be appointed 

counsel in this case. Plaintiff’s letter states in relevant part:

Case 3:16-cv-00416-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-416-BEN-JLB

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

[C]an I ask the courts to have someone assist me and if so if I also have 

someone in mind may I ask for that specific attorney if he agrees to be my 

paralegal assistant?

(ECF No. 14 at 1–2.) The Court interprets Plaintiff’s request as a motion for appointment 

of counsel. 

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in § 1983 cases. 

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “However, a court may under 

‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 

559 U.S. 906 (2010) (quoting Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 

Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom., Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005)). “When 

determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting 

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)). Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together. Id..

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Appoint Counsel as it appears Plaintiff is capable of articulating the factual basis 

for his claims and his likelihood of success on the merits is not yet clear. Therefore, neither 

the interests of justice nor any exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel 

at this time. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). This denial is without 

prejudice, and Plaintiff is therefore not precluded from requesting the appointment of 

counsel at a later stage in this case, should he be able to make the requisite showing of 

exceptional circumstances at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-00416-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 3