Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03931/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03931-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RALPH REYES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden; N.

GRANNIS; J. BURLESON; M. D.

CASTELLAW; D. T. HAWKES; K.

McGUYER; W. ANTHONY; J. BEESON;

D. BARNEBURG; and JOHN DOES 1-5,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3931 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order. Plaintiff has amended and has

moved for appointment of counsel.

DISCUSSION

A. Review of Amended Complaint

Upon review of the amended complaint, the court concludes that plaintiff has stated

a claim against the named defendants. They will be served.

B. Motion for Counsel

Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and

although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the

courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 10 Filed 07/02/10 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

In deciding whether to ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant, the court

evaluate (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to

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

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff appears able to present his claims

adequately, and the issues are not complex. The motion for appointment of counsel will be

denied.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend (document number 7 on the

docket) is GRANTED. The amendment is deemed timely. His motion for assignment of

counsel (document number 9) is DENIED. 

2. The clerk shall issue summons and serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of

the file, including copies of this order, upon the following defendants: Robert Horel,

Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison [“PBSP”]; N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals, CDCR,

Sacramento; J. Burleson, Appeals Examiner, PBSP; M. D. Castellaw, former warden,

PBSP; D. T. Hawkes, Correctional Counselor II, PBSP; K. McGuyer, Correctional Captain,

Investigative Services Unit, PBSP; W. Anthony, Captain, PBSP; J. Beeson, Special

Services Unit, CDCR, Sacramento; D. Barneburg, Sergeant, Institutional Gang Investigator,

PBSP; R. FLOTO, Appeals Examiner, Inmate Appeals Branch, CDCR, Sacramento.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

motion within sixty days of the date this order is entered. If defendants are of the opinion

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior

to the date their summary judgment motion is due. 

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 10 Filed 07/02/10 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

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th

Cir. 2003).

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen

days after service of the opposition. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or

defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\REYES3931.SERVE.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-03931-PJH Document 10 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3