Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01234-11/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONTAE LARAIL MCFADDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM WONG, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:22-cv-1234 AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff has filed motions requesting the appointment of counsel and an extension of time 

to oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 38, 39. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for counsel, the United States Supreme Court has ruled 

that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 

cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional 

circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

Case 2:22-cv-01234-AC Document 41 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is indigent, the issues in 

the case are complex, he has limited knowledge of the law, and the case involves medical records 

and expert medical testimony. ECF No. 39. As an initial matter, plaintiff’s indigency and lack of 

legal knowledge are circumstances common to most prisoners and do not warrant the 

appointment of counsel. Moreover, plaintiff makes only conclusory assertions of factual 

complexity, but the issue in this case does not appear to be overly complex. Plaintiff has alleged 

that he was seen by defendant on several occasions for his knee pain and that defendant refused to 

provide him with any medical care, accused plaintiff of faking his condition, and later took away 

plaintiff’s medications and mobility devices. ECF No. 1 at 3-5. To the extent plaintiff asserts 

that his account of the treatment he received differs from defendant’s account, plaintiff is 

competent to testify to what he experienced even though he has not established his competency to 

testify to the appropriateness of the treatment he received. Finally, while defendant has included 

an expert declaration to support his motion for summary judgment, expert testimony is not always 

necessary in resolving a motion for summary judgment. In this court’s experience, many 

deliberate indifference claims are resolved at the summary judgment stage without reliance on 

expert testimony. In some cases expert testimony is rendered irrelevant at the summary judgment 

phase in the face of fundamental disputes regarding what care was provided. Therefore, without 

plaintiff’s response to defendant’s statement of facts, which outlines the treatment defendant 

asserts plaintiff was provided, the court is unable to determine whether appointment of counsel 

for purposes of retaining an expert witness would be appropriate. For these reasons, plaintiff has 

not shown the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Rule 56(d) provides that 

“[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present 

facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; 

Case 2:22-cv-01234-AC Document 41 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 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 

3 

(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other 

appropriate order.” “The requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the 

specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the 

sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.” Fam. Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. 

Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff asserts that he requires additional time to conduct discovery to obtain copies of 

his medical records referenced in defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 38. 

Defendant has filed a notice of non-opposition, in which he states that all cited medical records 

were attached as exhibits to the motion and that he has served another full copy of the motion on 

plaintiff to ensure he has copies of the relevant documents. ECF No. 40. The court has reviewed 

the attachments to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and finds that the records plaintiff 

identifies are included therein and are identified in the defendant’s moving papers by their Bates 

numbers. Therefore, to the extent plaintiff seeks to stay briefing on the motion for summary 

judgment and re-open discovery, the motion will be denied. However, plaintiff will be granted 

additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 39), is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED to the extent 

that plaintiff shall have thirty days from the service of this order to respond to defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment. The motion is otherwise DENIED. 

DATED: May 20, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01234-AC Document 41 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 3