Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01650/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01650-3/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

NORBERTO SERNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:18-cv-01650-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS ENTERED ON 

DECEMBER 5, 2019

(ECF No. 16.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

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

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 

On December 5, 2019, the court entered findings and recommendations to dismiss this 

case for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim based upon Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended 

Case 1:18-cv-01650-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/06/20 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

complaint pursuant to the court’s order of September 27, 2019. (ECF No. 16.) On December 

19, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 17.) 

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In his objections, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel asserting that he is 

uneducated, can barely read and write in Spanish, and cannot speak English well enough to 

litigate this case. Plaintiff explains that another inmate is assisting him. 

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 (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. The 

fact that Plaintiff is uneducated and cannot speak English well does not make Plaintiff’s case 

exceptional under the law. At this early stage in the proceedings the court cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s Complaint was 

dismissed on September 27, 2019, for failure to state a claim and violation of Rule 18, 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. Moreover, based on the record in this case the 

Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice to renewing the motion at a later stage 

of the proceedings. 

Case 1:18-cv-01650-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/06/20 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

///

///

III. WITHDRAWAL OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; EXTENSION OF

TIME 

In light of Plaintiff’s circumstances, the court shall withdraw the findings and 

recommendations entered on December 5, 2019, and grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file 

the First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall be directed to send Plaintiff a civil rights 

complaint form. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty more days in which to file the First Amended 

Complaint, pursuant to the order issued on September 27, 2019.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. The findings and recommendations entered on December 5, 2019, are 

WITHDRAWN; 

3. The Clerk of Court shall SEND Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

4. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in which 

to file a First Amended Complaint pursuant to the court’s order of September 27, 

2019; and

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 

action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01650-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3