Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01300/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01300-5/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HANNA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01300-CW 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 25

On October 10, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to revoke 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Because 

Plaintiff had transferred to a new facility, the Court ordered 

Defendants to resend the motion to Plaintiff at his current 

address; Plaintiff’s opposition was due twenty-eight days after 

Defendants filed their notice of service. On December 31, 2014, 

Defendants filed notice that they served Plaintiff at his current 

address; thus, Plaintiff’s opposition is due on January 28, 2015. 

On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting the 

appointment of counsel or an extension of time to file his 

opposition.

“[I]t is well-established that there is generally no 

constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States 

v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to 

Case 4:14-cv-01300-CW Document 26 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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 California

appoint volunteer counsel for “any person unable to afford 

counsel.” The discretionary appointment of counsel typically is 

reserved for cases involving “exceptional circumstances.” 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A 

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of 

both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these 

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 

reaching a decision.” Id. Here, exceptional circumstances 

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. The 

request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. If, in the future, 

the Court concludes it is necessary to appoint counsel to 

represent Plaintiff, it shall do so on its own motion.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 

time to file his opposition, which is now due twenty-eight days 

from the date of this order. No further requests for extensions 

of time will be considered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/2/2015

__________________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-01300-CW Document 26 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2