Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02792/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02792-7/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

 Although the court docket indicates filing dates of September 15, 2010, September 5, 1

2010 is the date on which petitioner signed and delivered his motions to prison officials for

mailing. (See Dkt. No. 34, at 3, and Dkt. No. 35, at 6.) Pursuant to the mailbox rule, September

5, 2010, is considered the operative filing date of plaintiff’s motions. See Stillman v. Lamarque,

319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PASSER,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2792 KJN P

vs.

DR. STEEVERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 14, 2010, the district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and

recommendations, thereby authorizing (but not requiring) plaintiff to file, within thirty days, a

Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33.) The next day, on September 15, 2010,1

plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos.

34, 35.) 

Plaintiff’s discovery motion is premature. Should plaintiff choose to proceed on

the currently operative complaint and not to file a Second Amended Complaint, then after

Case 2:08-cv-02792-TLN-KJN Document 37 Filed 09/22/10 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

2

expiration of the thirty-day deadline the court will issue an order setting forth the requirements

for conducting discovery in this case. Plaintiff’s discovery motion is therefore premature and

must be denied without prejudice. However, all parties are cautioned that they will be required,

in conducting discovery, to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 26,

which requires each party to provide, early in the case, all pertinent initial disclosures. Cursory

review of plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that the information and documents he seeks are

probably subject to the initial disclosure requirements.

Plaintiff also moves for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he indigent,

has a limited knowledge and understanding of the law, has attempted unsuccessfully to obtain

counsel, and that counsel would be more effective at presenting evidence and cross-examining

witnesses. However, the challenges faced by plaintiff are not dissimilar to those faced by most

prisoners pursuing civil rights actions.

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

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); Franklin v.Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236

(9th Cir. 1984). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires a likelihood that plaintiff will

succeed on the merits of his action coupled with a limited ability to articulate his claims “in light

of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of

counsel under section 1915(d).” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (fn.

omitted),

The court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in the instant case. 

While there may be some likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff has

Case 2:08-cv-02792-TLN-KJN Document 37 Filed 09/22/10 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

3

ably demonstrated an ability to adequately present his claims, including those pertinent to the

instant matters. The court therefore finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this

time.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 34) is denied without

prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 35) is denied without

prejudice.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 21, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

pass2792.premature.disc

Case 2:08-cv-02792-TLN-KJN Document 37 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 3