Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03336/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03336-1/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

AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. BROCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03336-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR COURT TO ORDER 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER; 

AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff requests that the Court direct Defendants to file an answer to the complaint. The 

request is DENIED. Dkt. 11. On March 14, 2016, Defendants filed a waiver of reply pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (allowing a defendant to “waive the right of reply” in a civil rights action 

filed by a prisoner, providing that such a waiver is not an admission of the allegations in the 

complaint, and disallowing relief for the plaintiff unless a reply has been filed). In their waiver, 

Defendants correctly noted that the Court had not yet required a reply, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(g)(2). Instead, Defendants have since filed a dispositive motion, which is currently 

before this Court. See Dkt. 16. 

Plaintiff also has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. See

Dkt. 11 at 1. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel 

to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of 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. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be 

viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional 

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. The request for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. Dkt. 11.

Case 4:15-cv-03336-YGR Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

This Order terminates Docket No. 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

December 20, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-03336-YGR Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 2