Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01532/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01532-6/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 

FELIPE VALADEZ, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. GILL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1532 KJM AC P 

ORDER & 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action. Plaintiff has once again moved to “continue” his case or alternatively for appointment of 

counsel.1

As plaintiff has been previously informed, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that 

district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. 

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional 

circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

 

1

 The instant motion was filed the same day as the court’s order of April 3, 2014 it. 

Case 2:13-cv-01532-KJM-AC Document 35 Filed 04/15/14 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

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. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); 

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, 

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

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

The court has found that the instant complaint states a cognizable claim for relief on 

plaintiff’s claims of the use of excessive force by defendant West Sacramento Police Officers on 

two separate occasions. In the denial of plaintiff’s prior request for appointment of counsel, see 

order filed on April 3, 2014, the undersigned noted that while it appeared that plaintiff had a 

reasonable chance of succeeding on his claims, the court was not able to evaluate his likelihood of 

success on the merits at this point. It was also noted that the legal issues did not appear to be 

complex. Plaintiff’s desire to have counsel while being deposed did not warrant appointment of 

counsel. Plaintiff’s reference to being on psychotropic medication was found not to constitute an 

exceptional circumstance for an inmate. In his present request, plaintiff also states that he is deaf 

in his left ear. Such an infirmity does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Plaintiff’s 

repeated request for appointment of counsel does not meet his burden to demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. 

Plaintiff sought in the alternative to have his case “postponed.” Plaintiff has been 

informed that having brought this action, he is obligated to litigate it, and that defendants are 

entitled to discovery including the taking of plaintiff’s deposition. See Order at ECF No. 30. He 

has been told that he may bring a motion for a stay should he believe he had a sound basis to seek 

a stay of proceedings. However, plaintiff’s request for a stay of his case until he is released from 

prison is unavailing. Plaintiff remains free to dismiss his case should he no longer wish to 

proceed. In the instant motion, plaintiff’s main concern still appears to be his scheduled May 21, 

2014 deposition.2

 Plaintiff claims he is impeded from proceeding on this case by the fact of his 

 

2

 Plaintiff has filed a copy of a letter directed to his appointed appellate counsel referencing the 

upcoming deposition in the instant unrelated case. ECF No. 33. 

Case 2:13-cv-01532-KJM-AC Document 35 Filed 04/15/14 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

incarceration. See Motion, ECF No. 31. Plaintiff’s imprisonment, however, is not a sufficient 

basis for a stay of any kind in this case, particularly an open-ended stay. Although the district 

court does have the inherent power to impose a stay in order to control its own docket, 

Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.1983), the 

present circumstances do not warrant such action.3 Accordingly, the undersigned will 

recommend denial of plaintiff's request for a stay. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF 

No. 31) is denied. 

 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a stay of proceedings in the 

instant case (ECF No. 31) be denied. 

 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 twenty-one 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 reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed 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 Courts order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: April 14, 2014 

 

 

3

 A stay of an action may be appropriate and efficient “pending resolution of independent 

proceedings which bear upon the case.” Id. (internal quotation marks/citation omitted). 

Case 2:13-cv-01532-KJM-AC Document 35 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 3