Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02217/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHENG I. CHENG, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Deputy AMMERMAN, # D652; Deputy

ROBERT ROSENMILY; Deputy

O’DELL, # D670; Deputy ADAM

JOHNSON, # D691; Sergeant PAT

McTAGGART; Sheriff DON HORSLEY; 

NORMELEE TILLMAN, Director of

Correctional Health Services; REBECCA

ANDERSON POTTS, Medical Manager,

San Mateo County Jail; EMERGENCY

RESPONSE TEAM, San Mateo County

Jail; COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; and

DOES I-V,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-2217 WHA (PR) 

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO

FILE RESPONSE; DENIAL OF

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff moves for a 

restraining order against retaliatory assaults upon him by correctional officers at the jail. In

view of his allegation that he was violently assaulted on December 8th and 9th, 2006, causing

him to be hospitalized in a coma for six days, a response from defendants would assist the

Court. Defendants shall file a response within fourteen days of the date this order is entered. 

Plaintiff also moves for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), but 28

Case 3:06-cv-02217-WHA Document 30 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court 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). In short, the Court has only the power to ask pro bono counsel to

represent plaintiff, not the power to “appoint” counsel.

Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues, at least at this

stage, are not complex. The motion (document number 28 on the docket) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.06\CHENG217.ATY

Case 3:06-cv-02217-WHA Document 30 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2