Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02554/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02554-25/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

KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC

CARTER C. WHITE SBN: 164149

U.C. Davis School of Law

One Shields Avenue, Bldg. TB-30

Davis, CA 95616-8821

Telephone: (530) 752-5440

Fax: (530) 752-5788

ccwhite@ucdavis.edu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 2:03-cv-2554-GEB-GGH-P

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 

NUNC PRO TUNC

Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel nunc pro tunc, the

documents on file, and the trial record, the Court finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff made substantial efforts to obtain legal representation and was unable to do so;

2. Plaintiff has previously satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as found by

Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows in an order filed March 25, 2004;

3. This case is of a type that attorneys in this district ordinarily do not accept without

prepayment of a fee;

4. This case is not a fee generating case within the meaning of California Business and

Professions Code § 8030.4(g); and

5. This case has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) and General Order No. 230. During trial on November 1, 2007, Plaintiff moved to

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 155 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 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 Trial proceedings were not conducted on November 2 or 5, 2007. 1

2

dismiss two defendants, including Defendant Pliler, who the trial record indicated was exposed to

liability. The court responded to Plaintiff by telling him that “he should think about the motion,

and that court would convene on his motion at 8:45 a.m. on November 6, 2007.” At the time

1

Plaintiff made his dismissal motion, it was determined that exceptional circumstances existed

which justified contacting counsel on the court’s civil rights pro bono panel to ascertain whether

any attorney was available to assist Plaintiff on the motion and with other aspects of the trial (if

that was Plaintiff’s desire), since Plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits and was

likely to have a difficult time understanding the nuances of the deliberate indifference standard

applicable to his claims and articulating the evidence supporting the elements of that doctrine

without the assistance of counsel. Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.

2004) (“In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court may request an attorney to represent

any person unable to afford counsel. The decision to appoint such counsel is within the sound

discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances. A finding of the

exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least 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.”) (internal citations

and quotation marks omitted).

Therefore this court orders as follows:

1. The King Hall Civil Rights Clinic is appointed as attorney for Plaintiff pursuant to

General Order No. 230 nunc pro tunc as of November 1, 2007, and until relieved as counsel by

court order;

2. Any contemplated costs shall be handled as described in General Order No. 230.

Dated: November 21, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02554-GEB -GGH Document 155 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2