Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENTE SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CARRASCO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SERVE 

RESPONSE TO RFP, ONE THROUGH 

THREE, WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS

(Doc. 52)

Plaintiff Vincente Solomon (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 24, 2015. This action 

is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Carrasco and Dailo 

(“Defendants”) for depriving Plaintiff of outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution. 

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the appointment of counsel and a 

discovery request directed to Defendants’ counsel. For the reasons set forth in the order filed on 

October 13, 2015, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.1 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). 

 

1 The Court very recently addressed this issue, and there have been no changed circumstances supporting what 

amounts to a request for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Local Rule 230(j).

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 53 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Discovery requests must be served on Defendants’ counsel by mail; they should not be 

filed with the Court, as Plaintiff has been informed. Defendants shall treat the filing of October 

29, 2015, as a request for the production of documents (“RFP”), one through three, and they shall 

serve their response on Plaintiff within forty-five days from the date of service of this order. (Doc. 

34, Disc. & Sched. Order, ¶2.) 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED; and

2. Defendants’ counsel shall serve a response to Plaintiff’s RFP, one through three, 

within forty-five (45) days form the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 53 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 2