Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01867-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES FLOURNOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANJULA BOBBALA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1867 JAM KJN P (TEMP)

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action. Pending before 

the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff’s motion for appointment 

of counsel, and plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ 

motion to dismiss. 

First, as to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, at the time plaintiff filed his 

motion he was incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento. On September 21, 2015, 

plaintiff filed a notice of change of address in this case to reflect his recent transfer to the 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. Thus, plaintiff is no longer subject to the alleged 

unlawful conditions he complained of at California State Prison, Sacramento. See Weinstein v. 

Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975). Nor does plaintiff’s complaint fall within the “capable of 

repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. See Williams v. Alioto, 549 

F.2d 136, 143 (9th Cir. 1977) (“A mere speculative possibility of repetition is not sufficient. 

Case 2:13-cv-01867-JAM-KJN Document 35 Filed 11/12/15 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

There must be a cognizable danger, a reasonable expectation, of recurrence for the repetition 

branch of the mootness exception to be satisfied.”). Accordingly, the court recommends denying

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief as moot. 

Turning now to plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, district courts lack authority 

to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 

attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 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). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 

plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id.

Plaintiff asserts that he requires appointment of counsel because he is indigent and has a 

limited education. While the court sympathizes with these challenges, they are insufficient to 

merit the appointment of counsel at this time. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as 

lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances 

that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court denies

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

Finally, plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to 

dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Bobbala, Daye, Nangalama, and Sahota. Good cause 

appearing, the court grants plaintiff’s request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 30) is denied without 

prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 31) is granted; and

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01867-JAM-KJN Document 35 Filed 11/12/15 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

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file and 

serve a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Any reply shall be filed and served in 

accordance with Local Rule 230(l).

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive 

relief (Doc. No. 24) be denied as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: November 10, 2015

flou1867.31+36opp

Case 2:13-cv-01867-JAM-KJN Document 35 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 3