Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00797/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00797-2/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

SHILOH HEAVENLY QUINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DE LA CRUZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00797-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO CONTINUE CASE AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 13)

Plaintiff Shiloh Heavenly Quine (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California from the 

Northern District of California on July 8, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) The complaint has not yet been 

screened. (ECF No. 1.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to continue case and request for 

appointment of counsel, filed August 2, 2024. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff states that her complaint 

was filed in response to a 2017 settlement not being honored. However, she would like to 

continue this case in the future regarding claims brought in the proper venue, if need be. If 

Plaintiff is required to pay the filing fee for this action she seeks to continue this action. Plaintiff 

also requests appointment of counsel, as she has no professional qualified ability, funds, 

resources, or legal knowledge. She needs counsel to provide professional assistance, and there 

Case 1:24-cv-00797-KES-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/07/24 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

are exceptional circumstances as to all claims involved regarding her approval for facial 

feminization and breast augmentation surgeries. (Id.)

Plaintiff is informed that she does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (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 circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 

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).

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 

would entitle her to relief, her case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 

almost daily by prisoners seeking medical treatment who must litigate their cases without the 

assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened to 

determine whether it states a cognizable claim. Finally, based on a review of the record in this 

case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate her claims.

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking enforcement or cancellation of a prior settlement 

agreement finalized in the Northern District of California, those claims are not appropriately 

brought in this action. However, as it appears Plaintiff is attempting to raise new claims separate 

from the prior settlement agreement, this complaint will be allowed to continue to screening 

before this Court. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

Case 1:24-cv-00797-KES-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/07/24 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to continue case, (ECF No. 13), is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 13), is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00797-KES-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/07/24 Page 3 of 3