Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03496/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03496-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE J. ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER R. CUSACK,

Defendant.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3496 SBA (pr)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO

FEDERAL PRO BONO

PROJECT AND ADDRESSING

PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 22, 28, 34, 38)

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's discovery motions (docket nos. 22, 28, 38)

and Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment (docket no. 34). The Court will also

consider if it would be beneficial to have counsel assist Plaintiff in this matter.

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

I. Legal Standard

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant

may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no

constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g

en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district

court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

"coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310

(1989).

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

"exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both 

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand, 113 F.3d at

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 42 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before

reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id.

II. Analysis

On April 15, 2004, this Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendant for acting with deliberate indifference toward a serious

threat to Plaintiff's physical safety and granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On August 13, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 20, 2004,

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. On November 16, 2004, Defendant filed an

opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary

judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. On March 31, 2005, the Court denied both 

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Defendant's cross-motion for summary

judgment. The parties were directed to abide by a new briefing schedule. Defendant has

since filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and again, on the basis of qualified immunity. Plaintiff has not

filed an opposition to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, and instead,

Plaintiff has filed two discovery motions.

Plaintiff has attempted to conduct discovery on his own behalf, with limited success. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated diligence, but clearly is unfamiliar with discovery processes and is

impeded by the relatively severe conditions of his confinement. The Court finds that many

of Plaintiff's requests for discovery have merit, however, it is evident that Plaintiff is in need

of legal assistance in order to successfully obtain the necessary discovery requests in this

action. Furthermore, the Court has previously denied Defendant's motion for summary

judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and therefore Plaintiff's claims may succeed on

the merits. For all of the foregoing reasons and due to the complexity of the legal issues in

this case, the Court finds that "exceptional circumstances" exist to warrant appointment of

counsel and exercises its discretion to seek pro bono representation for Plaintiff.

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 42 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PENDING MOTIONS

Based on the Court's decision to appoint counsel for Plaintiff in this action, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff's discovery motions (docket nos. 22, 28, 38) and Defendant's renewed

motion for summary judgment (docket no. 34) without prejudice to renewing it after an

attorney is appointed to represent Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

1. The Court having determined that it would be in the interests of justice to

have counsel assist Plaintiff in this matter and good and just cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's case shall be referred to the Court's Federal Pro Bono

Project in the manner set forth below:

a. Upon designation of a volunteer law firm by the Federal Pro Bono

Project, the Clerk of the Court shall send the law firm copies of: (1) this Order; (2) Plaintiff's

complaint (docket no. 1), (3) the Court's April 15, 2004 and March 31, 2005 Orders

(docket nos. 6, 23); (4) the docket sheet; and (5) the Federal Pro Bono Project guidelines.

b. Upon the law firm's designation of an attorney to represent

Plaintiff, that attorney shall be appointed as counsel for Plaintiff in this matter until further

order of the Court. At that time, the Court will also issue a new scheduling order.

2. All proceedings in this action are stayed until four (4) weeks from the date an

attorney is appointed to represent Plaintiff in this action, unless otherwise specifically

provided in a Court order.

3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's discovery motions (docket nos. 22, 28, 38) and

Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment (docket no. 34) without prejudice to

renewing it after an attorney is appointed to represent Plaintiff. 

4. A case management conference in the above-referenced case is set for

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 2:30 P.M. and will proceed telephonically. If an attorney

for Plaintiff is appointed, he or she shall be responsible for arranging the conference call. If

an attorney has not yet been appointed for Plaintiff by the date of the case management

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 42 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

conference, then Defendant's attorney shall arrange the conference call. All parties shall be

on the line and shall call (510) 637-3559 at the above indicated date and time. 

The parties must submit case management conference statements no later than

January 18, 2006, indicating what discovery remains to be done, the amount of time needed

for discovery, whether any further motions will be filed, and when they will be ready for

trial. The case management conference statements need not be jointly prepared but, as with

all documents sent to the court, must be served on the opposing party. 

5. This Order terminates Docket nos. 22, 28, 34, and 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/24/05 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03496-MEJ Document 42 Filed 10/25/05 Page 4 of 4