Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00308/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00308-6/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

3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS

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

JON WARREN LARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN D. PARAMO, ET AL.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; and

(2) GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel 

and his second motion for extension of time to file his Third Amended Complaint 

(“TAC”). (ECF Nos. 103, 105.) 

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him counsel in this matter. (ECF No. 105.) 

Plaintiff claims he is unable to “afford counsel,” the issues in this matter are “complex,” 

and he has no access to the prison’s law library. (Id. at 1.)

However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. 

Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). While under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), 

district courts have some limited discretion to “request” that an attorney represent an 

Case 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS

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

indigent civil litigant, Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 

2004), this discretion is rarely exercised and only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; 

see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances requires “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103, quoting Wilborn 

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Applying these factors to Plaintiff’s case, the Court DENIES his Request to 

Appoint Counsel because a liberal construction of his pleadings shows he is capable of 

articulating the factual basis for his claims. All documents filed by pro se litigants are 

construed liberally, and “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to 

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover, FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) requires that “[p]leadings . . . be 

construed so as to do justice.” 

The pleadings filed by Plaintiff to date demonstrate that while Plaintiff may not be 

trained in law, he is capable of legibly articulating the facts and circumstances relevant to 

his claims, which are typical, straightforward, and not legally “complex.” Agyeman, 390 

F.3d at 1103. Therefore, neither the interests of justice nor any exceptional 

circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel in this case at this time. LaMere v. 

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

II. Motion for Extension of Time

On October 18, 2017, the Court had previously granted Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension of time to file his TAC and permitted him leave to file his TAC by December 

1, 2017. (ECF No. 101.) Before that time had passed, Plaintiff filed this second request 

for an extension of time. In this current request, Plaintiff seeks an additional one 

hundred twenty (120) days to file his TAC. (ECF No. 103 at 1.) Plaintiff also claims he 

has been denied access to the prison law library. (Id.)

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS

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

Plaintiff does not need access to the prison law library to respond to the Court’s 

previous Orders. Plaintiff must overcome the problems with his pleadings by alleging 

specific and relevant factual allegations to support each claim he is making in this action. 

III. Conclusion and Order

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 105) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 103) is GRANTED. The 

Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension to file his TAC in this matter. Plaintiff is 

granted sixty (60) days leave to file a TAC from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff’s 

TAC must cure all the problems with his previous pleadings identified in the Court’s 

September 13, 2017 Order. 

The Court will perform the required sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within sixty (60) days, this 

entire action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Court’s September 13, 2017 

Order and for failing to comply with a Court Order. 

No further extensions of time will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2017

Hon. Barry Ted. Moskowitz, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:15-cv-00308-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3