Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01511-6/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 MOTIONS TO COMPEL

AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docs. 43, 45, 48, 49)

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 September 1, 2011. 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 August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order compelling Defendants to 

produce the documents he requested in July 2015, and on September 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

another motion seeking an order compelling Defendants to produce documents. (Docs. 43, 45.) 

Defendants filed oppositions on September 2, 2015, and September 17, 2015. (Docs. 44, 46.) On 

October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes to be replies. (Docs. 48, 49.) 

Defendants represent that they have not received any discovery requests from Plaintiff and 

Plaintiff’s replies evidence his attempts to seek documents directly from prison staff rather than 

from Defendants’ counsel. (Doc. 34, Disc. & Sched. Order, ¶¶1, 2.) Individual prison employees 

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/13/15 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

are not required to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Rather, as Plaintiff was informed 

by the Court in its order of July 31, 2015, he is required to mail his discovery requests 

directly to Defendants’ counsel:

Patricia Webber Heim, Deputy Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P. O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA, 94244-2550. 

Because Plaintiff has not served Defendants’ counsel with any discovery requests, he is not 

entitled to an order compelling a response. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests to 

Defendants’ counsel at the address provided. Defendants then have forty-five days, plus three 

days for mailing, within which to serve their responses. 

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel in the event that his motions to compel 

are denied, set forth in his reply, is denied. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the 

appointment of counsel in this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional 

circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 

merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 

789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331. 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record 

in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 970. Moreover, Plaintiff’s assertions regarding Defendants’ refusal to respond to his 

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/13/15 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

requests for discovery lack merit given that Plaintiff has not properly engaged in discovery with 

Defendants.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions to compel and for the appointment of counsel 

are HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3