Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02688/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02688-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,

CDCR #V-15331,

Civil No. 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT’S 

MARCH 12, 2013 ORDER

[ECF Doc. No. 23]

vs.

V. KEMP, Correctional Officer; 

A. ANDERSEN, Correctional Officer; 

A. LAROCCO, Correctional Officer; 

J. LUNA, Correctional Officer; 

C. CRESPO, Correctional Officer; 

J. McGEE, Correctional Officer;

G. SAVALA, Correctional; Lieutenant; 

E. GARCIA, Correctional Captain,

Defendants.

Keith Wayne Sekerke (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner formerly incarcerated at the California

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, is proceeding in this civil action in pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 12, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) [ECF Doc. No. 21]. 

Specifically, the Court denied Defendant Kemp, Andersen and Crespo’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s excessive force claims as alleged in Count 1, but granted Defendant McGee and

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-dny-csl&ext-time-FAC.wpd -1- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 27 Filed 05/01/13 Page 1 of 5
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

Larocco’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s inadequate medical treatment claims (also in Count 1). 

The Court further granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s due process claims as

alleged in Count 2, as well as their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 as alleged in Count 3. See March 21, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No.

21] at 17. Plaintiff was granted the option of either filing an Amended Complaint in light of the

pleading deficiencies identified by the Court within forty-five (45) days, or filing a “Notice of

Intention to Proceed with his Original Complaint” as to his Eighth Amendment excessive force

claims against Defendants Kemp, Andersen and Crespo only. Id.

On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF Doc. No.

23]. 

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is “unable to afford counsel,” the

“issues in [his] case[] are complex,” he has limited access to the prison law library, he is

“suffering [from] multi-diagnosed mental illnesses,” and, while he can “duplicate well,” he has

“many difficulties ... understanding civil federal law.” See Pl.’s Mot. for Appointment of

Counsel at ¶¶ 1-4. 

Nonetheless, “[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.”

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d

1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d

1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”)

(citation omitted). Federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of

counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United

States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts courts do have discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that

an attorneyrepresent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d

at 1525. “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiffseeking assistance requires

at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-dny-csl&ext-time-FAC.wpd -2- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 27 Filed 05/01/13 Page 2 of 5
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

of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Court agrees that counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present “expert witnesses

and testimonies,” “perform discovery adequately,” and cross-examine witnesses in the event of

trial. See P&As in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. at 4, 6-7. Indeed, any pro se litigant “would be better

served with the assistance of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

1331). However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, is able to “articulate his

claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which

might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Id. (finding no abuse of discretion under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se

prisoner “may well have fared better– particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing

of expert testimony.”). 

In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint demonstrates his ability to articulate essential facts

supporting his claims. And while some of his claims have been dismissed pursuant to

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6), the Court’s March 12, 2013 Order clearly identified the governing law

and explained specifically why Plaintiff’s pleading, at least in part, failed to state a claim. See

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that “[w]hile [the] statement of

deficiencies need not provide great detail or require district courts to act as legal advisors to pro

se plaintiffs, [the dismissal order] must at least [include] a few sentences explaining the

[complaint’s] deficiencies.”). In addition, while Plaintiff’s incarceration may make litigation

more difficult for him, the Court takes judicial notice that he has nonetheless ably managed to

file seven separate actions in this Court alone since 2005, three of which still remain pending. 1

See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that court “‘may take notice

In addition to this case, Plaintiff has filed Sekerke v. CA Bd. of Prison Terms, S.D. Cal. Civil 1

Case No. 05cv00293 IEG (AJB) (closed 2/17/05); Sekerke v. Hernandez, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

09cv0360 JAH (JMA) (closed 11/29/10); Serkerke v. Morris, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv1912

JAH (BGS) (closed 3/25/13); Sekerke v. Glynn, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv1914WQH (BLM)

(closed 3/22/13); Sekerke v. Wallace, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv1978 JAH (NLS) (pending),

and Sekerke v. Sec’y/Director of Cal. Dept. of Corrections, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv0989

JAH (MDD) (pending).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-dny-csl&ext-time-FAC.wpd -3- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 27 Filed 05/01/13 Page 3 of 5
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

of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’”) (internal citations omitted).

Thus, because in this case the Court has granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend, and,

for reasons explained below, will provide him extra time in which to do so, neither the interests

of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere

v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

III. EXTENSION OF TIME

As noted above, on March 12, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff 45 days in which to either

file an Amended Complaint or to notify the Court that he instead wished to proceed only with

those claims it found sufficient to survive Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. See March 12, 2013

Order [ECF Doc. No. 21] at 17-18. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of

Counsel, in which he fails to indicate which course of action he intends to pursue–and the time

for doing either will soon elapse. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990) (court has a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on

the merits of their claim due to ... technical procedural requirements.”). Thus, the Court finds

good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension of time in which to comply with its March 21, 2013

Order. “‘Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro

se ... plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th

Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district

court’s dismissal of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimely where mere 30-day delay

was result of prison-wide lockdown).

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

[ECF Doc. No. 23] without prejudice and GRANTS him an extension of time in which to either: 

a) file with the Court and serve upon Defendants an Amended Complaint which addresses all

the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s March 12, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 21];

or b) file and serve a “Notice of Intention to Proceed with his Original Complaint” as to the

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-dny-csl&ext-time-FAC.wpd -4- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 27 Filed 05/01/13 Page 4 of 5
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

Eighth Amendment claims currently alleged in Count 1 against Defendants Kemp, Andersen,

and Crespo only. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or Notice to Intention to Proceed must be

served on Defendants and received by the Court no later than Friday, May 31, 2013.

Plaintiff is once again cautioned that should he elect to amend, his Amended Complaint

must be complete in itself, that it will supersede his original Complaint, and that any claim not

re-alleged against any Defendant previously named will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL.

CIVLR 15.1; King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

If Plaintiff elects not to amend, and instead files a “Notice of Intention to Proceed with

his Original Complaint,” the Court shall thereafter direct Defendants Kemp, Andersen, and

Crespo to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF Doc. No. 1] within the time provided

by FED.R.CIV.P. 12(a)(4)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-dny-csl&ext-time-FAC.wpd -5- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 27 Filed 05/01/13 Page 5 of 5