Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02443/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02443-2/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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without

Prejudice; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Stearns443misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT STEARNS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

J.S. WOODFORD, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2443 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SERVICE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; DENYING

MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;

INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK 

(Docket Nos. 17, 18)

Plaintiff Stearns and five other prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison, proceeding

pro se, filed the instant complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court initially

concluded that this action could not proceed as a class action and dismissed all Plaintiffs

without prejudice except for the named Plaintiff, Scott Stearns. The Court dismissed the

complaint with leave to amend as to Plaintiff Stearns to file an amended complaint

including all of the claims he wishes to present containing allegations pertaining to

himself only. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself and on behalf

of dismissed Plaintiff Jorge Aranda, a motion for service, and a motion for appointment

*Original filed 3/15/07

-------

JF

Case 5:05-cv-02443-JF Document 21 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without

Prejudice; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Stearns443misc 2

of counsel. The Court will instruct the Clerk to copy the amended complaint on behalf of

dismissed Plaintiff Jorge Aranda (docket no. 15) and open a new civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion for service

(docket no. 17) and motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 18) without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

A. Amended Complaints and Motion for Service

Plaintiff Stearns has filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself and a motion

for service. Plaintiff Stearns also filed an amended complaint on behalf of dismissed

Plaintiff Jorge Aranda. In its initial order, the Court dismissed all Plaintiffs, except

Plaintiff Stearns, because this action cannot proceed as a class action. Pro se prisoner

plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately

protect the interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.

1975); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant

appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”), so

class certification may be denied on that basis, see Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129,

131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot

adequately represent class). 

Accordingly, dismissed Plaintiff Aranda’s amended complaint (docket no. 15)

should be filed as a new civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk shall

copy the amended complaint (docket no. 15) and open a new civil action with Plaintiff

Jorge Aranda as the sole named Plaintiff. The Court will review Plaintiff Stearns’s

amended complaint in a separate written order. Plaintiff’s motion for service (docket no.

17) is DENIED without prejudice in order for the Court to review the amended complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff Stearns filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff contends that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he is indigent, he cannot afford to hire

counsel and the issues involved are complex. Plaintiff maintains that he has limited

Case 5:05-cv-02443-JF Document 21 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without

Prejudice; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Stearns443misc 3

knowledge of the law, he is housed in administrative segregation (“SHU”) and has limited

access to the law library. See Plaintiff’s Mot. at 1-2. 

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

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district

court only the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); 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. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). 

As the Court has not reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s amended complaint to

determine whether the claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court concludes

that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion

for appointment of counsel (docket no. 18) is DENIED without prejudice. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-02443-JF Document 21 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without

Prejudice; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Stearns443misc 4

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall copy dismissed Plaintiff Aranda’s amended complaint 

(docket no. 15) and open a new civil action with Plaintiff Jorge Aranda as the sole named

Plaintiff. The Court will review Plaintiff Stearns’s amended complaint in a separate

written order. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for service (docket no. 17) is DENIED without prejudice 

in order for the Court to review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 18) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

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

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

3/14/07

Case 5:05-cv-02443-JF Document 21 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel Without

Prejudice; Instructions to Clerk 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Stearns443misc 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Scott Stearns 

J-61801

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531

Jorge Aranda

E-68278

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531

Case 5:05-cv-02443-JF Document 21 Filed 03/15/07 Page 5 of 5