Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-14/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

ANDREW LOPEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 )

v. ) 

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:04-CV-05595-OWW-DLB-P

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(DOCUMENTS #103 & #106)

On July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for an

extension of time to respond to defendants’ cross-motion for summaryjudgment (doc # 87), defendants’

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc #87), and defendants’ response to plaintiff’s

statement of undisputed facts (doc #89). Again on August 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for

appointment of counsel.

1. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

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

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 107 Filed 08/14/06 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

circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and]

the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

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 and that he has made serious allegations which,

if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases

almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that

plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does

not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be

denied without prejudice.

2. Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ crossmotion for summary judgment (doc # 87), defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (doc #87), and defendants’ response to plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts (doc #89).

However, plaintiff already filed responses to these documents on June 23, 2006 (doc #92 – response to

doc #89) and July 10, 2006 (docs #99 & #100 – responses to doc #87). Should plaintiff have cause to

file further responses, he must bring a new motion for extension of time with a supporting declaration

setting out the reasons that further responses are needed. In light of this requirement, plaintiff’s motion

for extension of time shall be denied without prejudice.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice,

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 14, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 107 Filed 08/14/06 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

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 107 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 3