Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05091/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05091-2/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

CLIFTON JEROME McDANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE ORTIZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5091 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME (Docs. 72-1, 2.) 

Clifton Jerome McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2002, against Defendant Bernal for

allegedly denying plaintiff use of a shower in retaliation for filing an inmate grievance. 

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 2, 2005, contending that the case should be

dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff opposed the

Motion stating that Defendant tore up his appeals thereby precluding him from exhausting. After

review of the Motion and Complaint, the Court requested Plaintiff file a surreply to clarify the

Case 1:02-cv-05091-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 12/16/05 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

level of appeal that was allegedly destroyed by Defendant. The Court also directed Defendants to

file a Response to Plaintiff’s surreply. 

Plaintiff moved for an extension of time and for the appointment of counsel on November

2, 2005. On December 8, 2005, Defendants provided supplemental briefing clarifying the law

with regard to the appeals required by Plaintiff and also addressing the impact or recent Ninth

Circuit law. 

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

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 District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

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

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law, that he has made serious allegations

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, and that he has difficulty seeing, his case is not

exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, Plaintiff's request

for the appointment of counsel must be DENIED. 

B. Motion for an Extension of Time

Plaintiff states that more time is needed for counsel. Apparently Plaintiff believes that

the Court will appoint counsel and thus, would grant more time for counsel to come up to speed. 

However, as noted above, Plaintiff’s case does not present exceptional circumstances to warrant

the appointment of counsel. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff an additional thirty days to

formulate a response to the Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum and filed with the Court on

December 8, 2005 and served on Plaintiff the same date. 

C. Order

Based on the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is DENIED:

Case 1:02-cv-05091-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 12/16/05 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

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to file his

Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum filed on December 8, 2005. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to submit a response as contemplated by the Court

will result in the Court’s resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05091-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 3