Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02420/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02420-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 1

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at the California State Prison - Los Angeles County.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL LEE CALLEGARI, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES D. LEE, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-2420 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE

MOTION; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(Docket Nos. 19, 23, 24)

On May 12, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by prison

and medical officials at SVSP.1

 Following various procedural rulings, the Court, by order

filed October 6, 2009, ordered defendants to respond to the claim for deliberate indifference

to plaintiff’s serious medical needs found cognizable in plaintiff’s amended complaint. In so

doing, the Court directed defendants, within ninety days, to either file a motion for summary

judgment or other dispositive motion or, alternatively, inform the Court that they did not

intend to do so. 

On January 4, 2010, defendants filed an answer to the complaint; together with the

answer, they filed a request for an extension of time of 120 days to file a dispositive motion

Case 3:08-cv-02420-MMC Document 25 Filed 01/14/10 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

based on their ongoing efforts to obtain plaintiff’s medical and central file records. Good

cause appearing, defendants’ request is hereby GRANTED. (Docket No. 23.) Defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion no later than May 6,

2010. Plaintiff shall file opposition to the motion within thirty days of the date the motion is

filed. Defendants shall file a reply within fifteen days of the date the opposition is filed.

Also pending before the Court is plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel to

represent him in this action. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as

this. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915, a district court has the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant

who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision to request

counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the

trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation

of (1) the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits, and (2) the plaintiff’s ability to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To date,

plaintiff has been able to present his claims in an adequate manner and there are no

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Should the

circumstances of the case materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s request sua

sponte. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 

(Docket No. 19.)

Additionally, plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, by which he aks

the Court to contact prison officials at the California State Prison – Los Angeles County,

where plaintiff currently is incarcerated, to inquire as to why plaintiff was transferred to that

prison from SVSP and why he might be transferred again to another prison. Plaintiff

contends he is concerned that if he keeps being transferred he will not receive the medical

care he requires. Plaintiff sought similar relief previously from the Court, and that request

was denied in the order of service. 

Case 3:08-cv-02420-MMC Document 25 Filed 01/14/10 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

As the Court explained to plaintiff in its prior order, prisoners have no constitutional

right to incarceration in a particular institution. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48

(1983). Specifically, a prisoner’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his

conviction such that the state may generally confine or transfer him to any of its institutions,

to prisons in another state or to federal prisons, without offending the Constitution. Rizzo v.

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover, there is no indication here that prison

officials are transferring plaintiff in order to avoid providing him medical treatment or that

plaintiff will not be able to receive necessary treatment at another prison. Finally, the Court

is without jurisdiction over prison officials at the California State Prison – Los Angeles

County as they are not defendants to this action. Consequently, if plaintiff believes his

constitutional rights have been violated by said prison officials, he must file a separate action

so alleging, and must do so in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California, the venue in which Los Angeles County is located. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is

hereby DENIED. (Docket No. 24.) 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 19, 23 and 24.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02420-MMC Document 25 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 3