Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

MALCOLM YISRAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MR. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 47)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO POSTPONE 

DEPOSITION AND EXTEND THE 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE AS MOOT

(Document# 48)

I. BACKGROUND

Malcolm Yisrael Wright (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 4, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This 

case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on January 13, 2011, against defendants 

Smith, Gonzales, and Miller for denial of access to prayer items in violation of the Free Exercise 

clause of the First Amendment, and against defendants Smith and Gonzales for interference with 

Plaintiff’s incoming mail beginning on December 24, 2007, in violation of the First Amendment. 

(Doc. 10.)1

 

1 On November 30, 2011, Plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims in the 

First Amended Complaint found cognizable by the court, against defendants Smith, Gonzales, and Miller for 

violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Free Exercise clause, and against defendants Smith and Gonzales for 

interference with Plaintiff’s incoming mail. (Doc. 16.) On September 25, 2013, the court issued an order granting in 

part Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed all defendants and 

claims from this action except the claims against defendants Smith, Gonzales, and Miller for denial of access to 

prayer items in violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, and against defendants Smith and 

Gonzales for interference with Plaintiff’s incoming mail beginning on December 24, 2007. (Doc. 41.)

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 52 Filed 06/11/14 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

On November 13, 2013, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order which established 

pretrial deadlines in this action, including a deadline of July 13, 2014 for completion of 

discovery, and a deadline of September 22, 2014 for filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 

46.)

On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel, (Doc. 47), 

and a motion to extend the discovery deadline and postpone Plaintiff’s deposition until after the 

court has ruled on the motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 48). 

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

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).

In the present case, Plaintiff argues that he is not knowledgeable of the law, is unable to 

afford counsel and has made efforts to obtain assistance, and his imprisonment will greatly limit 

his ability to litigate. Plaintiff also argues that he suffers from depression, panic attacks, and 

inability to concentrate, has no access to a law library or the assistance of other inmates, and only 

completed his education through the ninth grade. These conditions, while challenging, do not 

make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. While the court 

has found that Plaintiff states cognizable claims in the First Amended Complaint, this finding is 

not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture, hence the 

court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s claims for denial of 

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 52 Filed 06/11/14 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

access to religious items and interference with incoming mail do not appear complex, and based 

on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 

articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and 

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 

proceedings.

III. MOTION TO POSTPONE DEPOSITION AND EXTEND DISCOVERY 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff requests a court order postponing the taking of his deposition, and extending the 

discovery deadline, until after the court has ruled on the Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. Because the court shall deny the motion for appointment of counsel in this order, 

Plaintiff’s motion to postpone his deposition and extend the discovery deadline is moot and shall 

be denied as such.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed on June 9, 2014, is 

DENIED, without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to postpone his deposition and extend the discovery deadline, 

filed on June 9, 2014, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 52 Filed 06/11/14 Page 3 of 3