Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07791/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07791-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

CHARLES NICHOLSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. SANDO, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 19-01345 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK 

(Docket No. 9) 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer D. Sando at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”), where he was formerly housed. Plaintiff’s 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

Case 5:19-cv-07791-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that on July 29, 2019, Defendant Correctional Officer Sando used 

pepper spray on him while Plaintiff was merely attempting to walk into his cell. Dkt. No. 

1 at 11. Plaintiff claims he had mechanical waist restraints on at the time. Id. Plaintiff 

claims he was not allowed to shower and properly decontaminate, resulting in the loss of 

vision and breathing problems. Id. Plaintiff claims Defendant Sando’s actions violated the 

Eighth Amendment because he maliciously and sadistically used pepper spray to cause 

harm, and that Defendant’s refusal to allow Plaintiff to shower and decontaminate showed 

a total disregard to the harm he exposed Plaintiff to and jeopardized his health and safety. 

Id. at 15. Plaintiff seeks damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 3. 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations state cognizable Eighth Amendment 

claims for excessive force based on the unwarranted use of pepper spray, see Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992), and the deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health, see 

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). 

C. Request for Appointment of Counsel

In a brief letter filed with the Court, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. Dkt. 

No. 9. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant 

may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social 

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981)1; Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on 

reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to 

represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court 

Case 5:19-cv-07791-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 

1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of the “exceptional circumstances” of the plaintiff seeking 

assistance 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 pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 

390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand,113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for 

counsel under § 1915. See id. Plaintiff asserts that he is mentally ill and “don’t exactly 

know what to do.” Dkt. No. 9. However, he has managed, in pro se, to clearly articulate 

his claims and the Eighth Amendment issues involved are not complex. Furthermore, if 

Plaintiff’s allegations are substantiated, he has a good likelihood of success on the merits. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice 

for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell, 935 F.2d at 

1017; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for 

Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy 

of the complaint, Dkt. No. 1, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon 

Defendant Correctional Officer D. Sando at Salinas Valley State Prison (P.O. Box 

1020, Soledad, CA 93960-1020). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to 

Plaintiff. 

 2. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the 

summons and the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this 

Case 5:19-cv-07791-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail 

to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause shown for 

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will 

proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the waiver is filed, except that 

pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer 

before sixty (60) days from the day on which the request for waiver was sent. (This 

allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is 

necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver 

form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of 

service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but 

before Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days 

from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date 

the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

 3. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 

Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 

respect to the claims found to be cognizable above. 

 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the 

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 

Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the

Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 

warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See 

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 

 4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 

Case 5:19-cv-07791-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 

motion is filed. 

 Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment 

must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential 

element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to 

the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 

F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

 6. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

 7. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on 

Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 

copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 

 8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

 9. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 10. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 

 11. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

Case 5:19-cv-07791-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Dkt. No. 9. 

 This order terminates Docket No. 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

 

Order of Service 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.19\07791Nicholson_svc 

3/20/2020

Case 5:19-cv-07791-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 6