Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01952/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01952-14/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANNY R. GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C/O HEATH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1952 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action. Currently pending are several motions plaintiff filed in response to this court’s August 17, 

2016 finding and recommendations, wherein the undersigned recommends that all defendants 

except Mendoza be dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. The court addresses plaintiff’s current motions ad seriatim. 

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 In his seventh and eighth requests for appointment of counsel, plaintiff asserts that 

appointment of counsel is imperative to sustain this action. Plaintiff emphasizes that he is at an 

inherent disadvantage compared to defendants’ legal resources. 

 Plaintiff has previously been informed that this court lacks authority to require an attorney 

to represent an indigent prisoner in a civil rights action. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, this court may, in certain exceptional circumstances, 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 74 Filed 09/08/16 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

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the 

plaintiff. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited 

law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of 

voluntary counsel. Id. 

 The court again concludes that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s continuing 

incarceration, limited understanding of the law, and limited access to the prison law library are 

circumstances common to most prisoners. Moreover, in light of the pending findings and 

recommendations, which were based on an exhaustive review of the record, appointment of 

counsel would have a negligible impact on the direction and merits of this case. 

For these reasons, and the reasons previously stated by the court in denying plaintiff’s 

prior requests for appointment of counsel – see ECF Nos. 13, 16, 28, 30, 39 – plaintiff’s instant 

requests for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 69, 72, are denied without prejudice. 

MOTION FOR SUBPOENA/SUMMONS 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to subpoena “John Does 1 thru 5.” ECF No. 70. Plaintiff 

argues that these defendants were named in his First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17), but he 

was never instructed how to serve process on them. Plaintiff now seeks to serve these defendants 

with a summons and bring them into this case. 

Reliance on “Doe” defendants is disfavored in the Ninth Circuit. See Gillespie v. 

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (“As a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify 

a defendant is not favored.”). It is customary to dismiss Doe defendants from a case without 

prejudice, subject to later inclusion if plaintiff discovers their identity. See Brass v. County of 

Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 74 Filed 09/08/16 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

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Alternatively, as in the instant case, the order screening plaintiff’s 

operative First Amended Complaint did not dismiss the Doe defendants, but simply ignored them 

when identifying the defendants who should be served process. See ECF No. 18. 

 Thus, there is no authority for plaintiff’s request to subpoena or serve Doe defendants. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request, ECF No. 70, is denied. 

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

 Plaintiff requests that an evidentiary hearing be convened in this case “as soon as 

possible.” ECF No. 71 at 1. He asserts that “not ever having this evidentiary hearing is hurting 

his case greatly, this is just another reasons why plaintiff has requests counsel six times in the 

name of justice.” Id. Plaintiff does not further describe the purpose or nature of the requested 

hearing. 

 Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this court support 

plaintiff’s request to convene an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, further discovery may be 

conducted in this case. Following the district judge’s decision on the undersigned’s findings and 

recommendations, this court will consider reopening discovery on the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 

See ECF No. 66 at 2-3 (this court will consider reopening discovery “[s]hould this action proceed 

on the merits following the court’s decision on defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

premised on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). 

 For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 71, is denied. 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

 Plaintiff requests an extension of time of at least thirty days to research and prepare his 

objections to the undersigned’s pending findings and recommendations. Plaintiff recounts 

frustrations with his legal research to date, and notes the limited availability of law library 

computers. See ECF No. 73. 

 Review of plaintiff’s search inquiries indicates that he is approaching his objections with 

too broad a focus. The legal standards concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies are well 

established. Plaintiff should focus on the court’s assessments concerning the timing, content and 

processing of his administrative grievances, for which he does not need the prison library or 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 74 Filed 09/08/16 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

computers. These factual matters, not established legal standards, should be the focus of 

plaintiff’s efforts and objections. 

Subject to these suggestions, plaintiff will be accorded limited additional time to file and 

serve his objections, as set forth below. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 69 & 72, are denied without 

prejudice. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena and/or summons, ECF No. 70, is denied. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 71, is denied. 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion for extended time, ECF No. 73, is granted. Plaintiff shall file and 

serve his objections to the pending findings and recommendations on or before Monday, 

September 19, 2016. No further extensions of time will be granted. 

DATED: September 7, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 74 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 4