Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02208/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02208-3/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

MARK MCBOUNDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. CLAYS, et al,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2208 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, take judicial notice, and grant an 

extension of time to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) Defendants 

oppose plaintiff’s requests, except for the motion for extension of time. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff 

did not file a timely reply. As discussed below, the undersigned denies plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel and request for judicial notice, but grants plaintiff an extension of time in 

which to oppose defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff, an African American, alleges that defendants Junes, Clays, Vina and Farran 

retaliated against plaintiff for his refusal to sign a form implicating him in a Mexican riot, despite

the video surveillance (reviewed while plaintiff was detained in a holding cell for four hours) 

demonstrating his non-participation in the riot, as conceded by various prison staff, by wrongfully 

Case 2:19-cv-02208-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 4
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

placing him in administrative segregation and confiscating his personal property with the 

intention of depriving him of pieces of property. In addition, defendants then allegedly violated 

plaintiff’s due process rights by failing to provide due process prior by wrongfully placing him in 

administrative segregation as punishment without cause, to enable such defendants to confiscate 

and not return plaintiff’s personal property. 

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. 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.

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

1

 

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice of Mule Creek State Prison’s “custom or 

policy” to retaliate “against inmates who exercise their First Amendment rights.” (ECF No. 25.)

1

 The undersigned acknowledges that inmates’ physical access to prison law libraries are being

limited or denied due to the Covid-19 pandemic. But prisons are modifying their procedures, and 

inmates are able to access law library materials by using the paging system, and photocopying is 

handled through institutional mail. Plaintiff is advised that all documents filed with the court are 

matters of public record and are not confidential. 

Case 2:19-cv-02208-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s request is improper because it asks the court to take notice of a 

disputed fact.

A federal court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. 

R. Evid. 201(b). Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may 

take judicial notice of dismissal and ground therefore, but not of disputed facts therein). “As a 

general rule, a court may not take judicial notice of proceedings or records in another cause so as 

to supply, without formal introduction of evidence, facts essential to support a contention in a 

cause then before it.” M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 

(9th Cir. 1983). Proper subjects of judicial notice include “court filings and other matters of 

public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 

2006); United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). 

In his request, plaintiff cites six district court cases, both pending and resolved, and 

appears to argue that such cases filed by other inmates demonstrate that Mule Creek State Prison 

has a custom or policy of taking retaliatory actions against inmates who exercise their First 

Amendment rights. However, as argued by defendants, plaintiff’s request improperly seeks to 

notice a disputed fact critical to plaintiff’s underlying retaliation claim. Therefore, plaintiff’s 

request is denied. 

Request for Extension of Time

Plaintiff also requested an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to 

dismiss filed on October 15, 2020. Plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension of time. 

Therefore, his request is granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24) is denied without 

prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 25) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 24) is granted; and

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-02208-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition

to the motion to dismiss. 

Dated: December 7, 2020 

/mcbo2208.31+36

Case 2:19-cv-02208-KJM-KJN Document 29 Filed 12/07/20 Page 4 of 4