Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00250-5/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

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

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-00250-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 41.)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Sylester Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on January 3, 2019, at the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On February 21, 2019, the case was transferred to this court. 

(ECF No. 12.) 

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. 

(ECF No. 23.) On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff lodged a proposed Second Amended Complaint, and 

on July 26, 2019, Plaintiff lodged a proposed Third Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 32, 36.) 

On December 19, 2019, the court screened the First Amended Complaint and dismissed it for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff’s lodged complaints were 

stricken from the record. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file a Fourth 

Amended Complaint. (Id.)

Case 1:19-cv-00250-NONE-GSA Document 43 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 3
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

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 41.) On 

January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file the Fourth Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff’s motions are now before the court.

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed on December 19, 

2019, with leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Thus, there 

is no complaint on record in this case for which the Court has found cognizable claims. It is too 

early for service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Plaintiff’s due process claim 

is not complex. Moreover, after a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

can adequately articulate his claims and respond to the Court’s orders. Thus, the court shall deny 

the motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing 

the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

III. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court 

finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension of time. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days 

Case 1:19-cv-00250-NONE-GSA Document 43 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 3
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

from the date of service of this order in which to file the Fourth Amended Complaint, pursuant 

to the Court’s screening order issued on December 19, 2019.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 19, 2019, is 

DENIED, without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file the Fourth Amended Complaint, 

filed on January 2, 2020, is GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to 

file the Fourth Amended Complaint, pursuant to the Court’s screening order 

issued on December 19, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00250-NONE-GSA Document 43 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3