Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04447/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04447-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BLACH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN DOVEY, Director, Division of

Adult Institutions, California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and

DOES 1-100, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4447 PJH (PR)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

TO AMEND; RULINGS

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order. In that order the court noted 

that the only named defendant was John Dovey, head of the Division of Adult Institutions,

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and that only injunctive relief was

requested. To obtain such relief against the head of a state agency -- in reality an

injunction against a state agency -- a plaintiff must show that there was an intentional and

pervasive pattern of misconduct. Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d

1486, 1495 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff alleged only that there was a “de facto institution policy

justifying CDC agency defendant status.” The court concluded that this was insufficient to

state a claim under the Hannigan standard. Because plaintiff asks only for injunctive relief

and had been transferred to a different prison, the court also considered whether the claims

might be moot. Because a subsequent paper, though not part of the compliant, contained

an allegation that plaintiff also is being denied access to his papers at his new prison, the

court concluded that this case could be saved by amendment and dismissed with leave to

Case 4:05-cv-04447-PJH Document 30 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

amend.

Plaintiff has filed a number of motions which are now before the court for ruling.

1. Motion for counsel

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 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. 

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. Terrell v. Brewer, 935

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986).

It is difficult to evaluate plaintiff’s chances of success on the merits, given that he still

has not filed an amended petition; certainly as to the existing complaint, the chances are

minimal. In any event, plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, if he will just

control his tendency to prolixity and inclination to be distracted by irrelevant matters. The

motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

2. Motions for extension of time to file amendment

Petitioner has filed several motions asking for extensions. An extension of time to

amend will be granted, but this case cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely without

resolution. No further extensions will be granted; if the amendment is not filed within the

time as extended, this case will be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (document number 21 on the docket)

is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (document

Case 4:05-cv-04447-PJH Document 30 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

26) is GRANTED. The time to amend is EXTENDED to May 28, 2007. No further

extensions will be granted; if the amended complaint is not filed by the deadline, this case

will be dismissed. Plaintiff's other motions for an extension (documents 17, 18, 19, and 26)

are DENIED as moot.

3. Petitioner's motion for an investigation (document 29) is DENIED for the reasons

set out in the ruling on it in plaintiff's habeas case, C 05-04446 PJH (PR).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\BLACH447.MISC 

Case 4:05-cv-04447-PJH Document 30 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3