Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01304/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01304-2/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1304-dny csl & grt ext file fac.wpd -1- 10cv1304 WQH (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL LIVINGSTON ROUSE,

CDCR #AA-5835,

Civil No. 10cv1304 WQH (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO HAVE

COUNSEL APPOINTED

[Doc. No. 5]

vs.

ANTHONY CAMPAGNA, et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Carl Livingston Rouse, a state inmate currently incarcerated at High Desert State

Prison located in Susanville, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 6, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint

for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Aug. 6, 2010 Order at 4-5. However,

the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint in order to correct the

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a

“Request for Extension of Time and Motion to Have Counsel Appointed.” [Doc. No. 5].

Case 3:10-cv-01304-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 08/30/10 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1304-dny csl & grt ext file fac.wpd -2- 10cv1304 WQH (BGS)

I.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success

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

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

II.

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff also requests a thirty (30) day extension of time to file his First Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff indicates that he has had difficulty obtaining adequate access to the prison’s

law library. “‘Strict time limits . . . ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from

a pro se prisoner plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.”

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d

465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967)); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus,

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01304-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 08/30/10 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\10cv1304-dny csl & grt ext file fac.wpd -3- 10cv1304 WQH (BGS)

III.

Conclusion and Order

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel without prejudice and GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file a First

Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 5]. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be filed with the

Court no later than Friday, October 8, 2010 and must comply in all other respects with the

Court’s August 6, 2010 Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01304-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 08/30/10 Page 3 of 3