Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02366-7/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL A. MENDOZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEAL P. SWANN, D.D.S., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-02366 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, incarcerated in Salinas Valley State Prison, who proceeds pro 

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds against sole defendant Neal P. Swann, D.D.S., on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim 

that defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs concerning his 

cleft palate surgery and post-operative care, when plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Mule 

Creek State Prison. Defendant is in private practice in Jackson, California, and presumably 

provided services to plaintiff pursuant to a contract agreement with the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).1

 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the 

magistrate judge for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Local Rule 305(a). See also ECF Nos. 

12, 19-2 at 1. 

 

1

 Defendant was represented by private counsel until recently; as of February 23, 2015, defendant 

is represented by the California Attorney General’s Office. See ECF No. 42. 

Case 2:13-cv-02366-AC Document 44 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 4
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

 Currently pending is plaintiff’s form “request for extension” which includes a request for 

authorization to subpoena plaintiff’s own mental health records from CDCR (because there has 

reportedly been no response to his request), in order to respond to defendant’s discovery request 

for “all documents showing [plaintiff was] treated for ‘depression,’ anxiety or suicidal thoughts as 

a result of March 16, 2012 surgery.” ECF No. 43 at 2. In addition, plaintiff requests 

authorization for a “subpoena of witnesses . . . there (sic) not voluntorilly (sic).” Id. Plaintiff 

adds that “[h]ere dental [is] going to examin[e] my teeth & nasal cavity because it will be 

documented for tri[a]l [drawing of a smiling face]. . . . Dental here did xray there going to examin 

my teeths & the nasal cavity there’s my evidence. . . .” Id. at 1-2 (sic). The request notes that 

plaintiff’s prior requests for appointment of counsel, see ECF Nos. 35-6, were denied, see ECF 

No. 39 at 2-3, as was his request for appointment of an expert witness. 

 Significantly, in further support of his “request for extension,” plaintiff has submitted the 

results of a March18, 2015 TABE (Tests of Adult Basic Education) test, which accords plaintiff a 

Total Battery Score of 2.1 (based, in part on a reading level of 3.5 and language level of 1.8). See 

ECF No. 43 at 4. These results render plaintiff “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), entitled to the assistance of CDCR officials in order to effectively communicate with 

the court. See ECF No. 36 at 6-8; see also ECF No. 35. 

 The court construes plaintiff’s instant request as a renewed request for appointment of 

counsel. Although district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners 

in Section 1983 cases, Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989), when 

exceptional circumstances are presented, the court may request that an attorney voluntarily 

represent a civil rights plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 

1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When 

determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 

Case 2:13-cv-02366-AC Document 44 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 4
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

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant granting a request for voluntary 

assistance of counsel. 

 In light of the nature and procedural posture of the case, and plaintiff’s limited ability to 

effectively communicate, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Comprehensive review of 

plaintiff’s filings in this action demonstrates that he is not capable of effectively pursuing his own 

interests in this litigation, which the court has found to be nonfrivolous. 

 In addition, although the undersigned denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of a 

neutral expert witness, see ECF Nos. 38, 40, plaintiff may, through appointed counsel, request the 

assistance of a medical expert on his behalf. Voluntary appointed counsel assumes the costs of 

litigation, including expert fees, on a pro bono basis, and may seek the court’s approval for the 

reimbursement or advancement of such costs (which must be reimbursed to the court should 

plaintiff prevail or settle). See General Order No. 510, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of 

California. 

 Accordingly, having construed plaintiff’s wide-ranging “request for extension” as a 

renewed motion for appointment of legal counsel, the court finds that plaintiff has met his burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting such appointment. See General Order 

No. 230, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (setting forth the criteria and 

procedure for appointment of counsel in Section 1983 cases). Discovery will be stayed in this 

action pending appointment of counsel, and the deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions 

will be vacated until further order of this court. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion filed April 1, 2015, ECF No. 43, construed as a request for 

appointment of counsel, is granted. 

 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to contact Sujean Park, Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Coordinator, for the purpose of locating an attorney admitted to practice in this court who is 

willing to accept this appointment, for the purpose of pursuing this action on plaintiff’s behalf 

through remaining discovery, and all pretrial and trial proceedings. 

Case 2:13-cv-02366-AC Document 44 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 3. The deadlines for discovery and for filing dispositive motions (currently April 20, 2015 

and July 20, 2014, respectively, see ECF No. 39) are vacated until further order of this court; 

discovery is hereby stayed. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 6, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-02366-AC Document 44 Filed 04/06/15 Page 4 of 4