Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00407/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00407-5/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

No. C 13-0407 RS (PR)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 2/9/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VINCENT PRICE MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. HEDRICK, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 13-0407 RS (PR)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

The briefing schedule in this federal civil rights action was vacated pending service of

process on the sole defendant, A. Avalos. Service having been completed, the Court sets the

following briefing schedule. Defendant shall file a dispositive motion, or notice regarding

such motion, on or before May 11, 2015. Plaintiff’s opposition, if any, shall be filed within

45 days after defendant filed his motion. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed within 15

days after plaintiff filed his opposition. 

The Court reminds the parties that they are to adhere to all instructions in the second

order of service (Docket No. 29). In particular, defendant must adhere to the notice

provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of that order. 

Case 3:13-cv-00407-RS Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

No. C 13-0407 RS (PR)

2 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 45) is DENIED. The

decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is within

“the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional

circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se

litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff 

has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No.

45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00407-RS Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 2