Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00055-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER BURCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANE DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00055-NONE-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF NO. 65)

Peter Burchett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion. (ECF No. 65). It is difficult to 

understand, but it appears that Plaintiff is requesting appointment of pro bono counsel. 

The Court denied a request from Plaintiff for appointment of pro bono counsel less than a 

week ago (ECF No. 63). The Court will deny this request for the reasons described in the prior 

order (ECF No. 63, p. 3).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono 

counsel (ECF No. 65) is DENIED without prejudice.

The Court notes that, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to have video footage and 

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 66 Filed 02/13/20 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

2

photographs preserved, he may trigger the duty to preserve evidence by providing a notice of 

litigation to the appropriate prison official.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

“Federal law imposes a duty to preserve evidence before litigation begins and even before a discovery 

request. This duty requires a litigant to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, will be relevant evidence 

in a pending action or one in the offing.” Biselli v. Cnty. of Ventura, 2012 WL 2061688, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 

2012) (citing In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2006)); see also Leon v. 

IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation 

if the party has some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were 

destroyed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Once the duty to preserve attaches, a litigant or 

potential litigant is “required to suspend any existing policies related to deleting or destroying [evidence] and 

preserve all relevant [evidence] related to the litigation,” and courts may sanction parties responsible for spoliation of 

evidence. In re Napster, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d at 1066, 1070.

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 66 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2