Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03780/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03780-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEO KRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDVIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03780-HSG 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed this pro se civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated while he 

was housed at Mendocino County Jail. Plaintiff has filed a letter with this Court requesting 

appointment of counsel and an extension of time to file his opposition to the summary judgment 

motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED 

and his request for an extension of time is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

In requesting counsel and an extension of time, Plaintiff states that he has been unable to 

access the SQSP law library. Docket No. 33 at 1. Good cause being shown, Plaintiff’s request for 

an extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion by 

September 30, 2016.

However, Plaintiff’s request for counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he 

was denied medical treatment by Defendants, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has 

no constitutional right to counsel in this case because his physical liberty is not at stake. See 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 34 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (no constitutional right to counsel in a 

civil case unless indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation); see also 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 

1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(en banc). Where there is no constitutional right to counsel, the decision to appoint counsel to 

represent an indigent litigant under § 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 the “exceptional circumstances” of the plaintiff seeking assistance 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); 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision 

on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 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 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (that plaintiff may well have fared better 

with assistance of counsel not enough). Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff has not been completely denied access to the law library. Rather, he has been unable to 

access the law library in the two weeks he has been housed at SQSP.1 It is unclear if Plaintiff has 

since been granted access to the law library. Because exceptional circumstances do not exist at this 

time, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED at this time. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his opposition 

to defendants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to 

defendants’ summary judgment motion by September 30, 2016. Plaintiff’s request for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

 

1

Plaintiff states that his letter was written on August 11, 2016, and that he arrived at SQSP on July 

28, 2016. Docket No. 33 at 1.

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 34 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This order terminates Docket No. 33.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/22/2016

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 34 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 3