Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.GIPSON, et al,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-GSA (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN 

OF PROPERTY

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 26.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time and for appointment of 

counsel. (ECF No. 22.)

I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff requests an extension of an unspecified deadline in this action, because he was 

recently transferred to administrative segregation and does not have access to his property. The 

only court deadline pending in this case is a deadline to file the First Amended Complaint. 

Therefore, good cause appearing, Plaintiff shall be granted an extension of time to file the First 

Amended Complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 08/20/15 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

2

II. MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY

Plaintiff also requests a court order directing prison officials to return his property to him. 

On August 5, 2015, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s prior motion for return of 

property, for lack of jurisdiction. The present motion for return of property is not materially 

different than Plaintiff’s prior motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for return of property shall 

be DENIED as moot.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel to assist him with litigation of this case, 

because he lacks access to his property and is unable to conduct any investigation himself. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent 

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain 

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

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

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

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s Complaint was dismissed on May 18, 2015, for failure to state a 

claim, with leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Thus, there is 

no complaint on record in this case for which the Court has found cognizable claims. It is too 

early for service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, the court does not 

find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims or respond to the court=s orders. 

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel

///

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 08/20/15 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

3

at a later stage of the proceedings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel

shall be denied, without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service 

of this order in which to file his First Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court’s order of May 

18, 2015; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for return of property is DENIED as moot; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3