Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01043/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01043-8/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES C. MCCURDY, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

B. DEAL, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 17-01043 BLF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

REPLY TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE RECONSIDERATION MOTION; 

DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Docket Nos. 109, 114)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 11.) On July 7, 2017, the Court found the 

amended complaint contained cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment. (Docket 

No. 13.) On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second 

amended complaint (“SAC”). (Docket No. 55.) On January 25, 2018, the Court denied 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a SAC, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental 

complaint. (Docket No. 69.) On July 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint. 

(Docket No. 97.) Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, (Docket No. 67), 

which the Court granted in part on September 10, 2018. (Docket No. 107.) 

Plaintiff has filed motions requesting leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

(Docket Nos. 108, 110.) The only remaining Defendant filed an opposition. (Docket No. 

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 115 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 2
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File Reply; Deny Mot. for Appointment of Counsel 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\01043McCurdy_eot-recon-reply 

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 Californi

a

111.) Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a reply to 

Defendant’s opposition. (Docket No. 114.) Having shown good cause, Plaintiff’s motion, 

(Docket No. 108), is granted in part. Plaintiff shall file a reply no later than fourteen (14) 

days from the filing date of this order. 

Plaintiff has also requested the Court appoint counsel to represent him. (Docket 

No. 109.) There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent 

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of 

Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); 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). The decision to request 

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). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, 

(Docket No. 109), is DENIED without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances.

See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand,

113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This denial is without 

prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date should the 

circumstances of this case warrant such appointment.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 109 and 114. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

December 10, 2018

Case 5:17-cv-01043-BLF Document 115 Filed 12/10/18 Page 2 of 2