Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CHAKER, Case No. 10cv2599 GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO

COUNSEL PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) AND 

S.D. CAL. GEN. ORDER 596

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Nicole Chaker (“Plaintiff”) initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1983 in December 2010 with the assistance of counsel, but has been proceeding in pro

se since October 10, 2012, when after her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was

denied in part (ECF Doc. No. 26), and her counsel was granted permission to withdraw

(ECF Doc. No. 38). Plaintiff was granted a sixty-day stay in the proceedings to permit

her to obtain alternate counsel.

At a status hearing held on May 17, 2013, the Court continued the stay pending

an evaluation of Plaintiff’s disability. (ECF Doc. No. 48.) On September 13, 2013, the

Court held another status conference and lifted the stay so that the case could be referred

for settlement, with Plaintiff proceeding in pro se before the Magistrate Judge. 

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\2010\10-2599\10cv2599-Order-appt-counsel.wpd 1 10cv2599 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 71 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel (ECF Doc. No. 52),

arguing that her disability, inability to afford an attorney, lack of legal training, and the

complexity of her case warranted such an appointment. (Id.) The Court denied her

Motion without prejudice, however, finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish the

“exceptional circumstances” required to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). See ECF Doc. No. 53 (citing Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989)).

Since that time, Plaintiff has been unable to attend one mandatory settlement

conference (“MSC”) due to health issues confirmed by her doctor (ECF Doc. No. 59),

and the case failed to settle at a subsequent MSC (ECF Doc. No. 65). Plaintiff has also

had difficulty submitting a settlement statement, and has had several ex parte

applications to continue dates rejected based on Local Rules governing documents

sought to be submitted under seal (ECF Doc. Nos. 60-61, 63, 67, 68). In addition,

Defendants now seek an involuntary dismissal of the action based on Plaintiff’s “failure

to prosecute” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (ECF Doc. No. 69), despite the fact that

genuine issues of material fact exist necessitating trial. 

While there is no right to counsel in a civil action, as noted above, the district

court may under “exceptional circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1);

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must consider both “‘the

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

In order to provide for counsel under the circumstances prescribed by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), this Court has established a “Plan for the Representation of Pro Bono

Litigation in Civil Case filed in the Southern District of California,” which was adopted

by the Judges of this District on August 3, 2011 pursuant to S.D. Cal. Gen. Order No.

596. The Pro Bono Plan specifically provides for appointment of pro bono counsel “as

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\2010\10-2599\10cv2599-Order-appt-counsel.wpd 2 10cv2599 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 71 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 4
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

a matter of course for purposes of trial in each prisoner civil rights case where summary

judgment has been denied.” See S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. While Plaintiff is not a

prisoner, she is proceeding in pro se, summary judgment has been partially denied, a pretrial conference is currently set for July 25, 2014, and it has become clear that Plaintiff

is unable to proceed further without assistance. Therefore, the Court has now concluded

that the ends of justice will be served by the appointment of pro bono counsel under the

circumstances presented in this case. Id.

Accordingly, pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and General Order 596, the

Court has randomly selected an available volunteer attorney from the Court’s Pro Bono

Panel who has graciously agreed to represent Plaintiff pro bono during the course of all

further proceedings before this Court. Id.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby APPOINTS Stephen P. White, of the Law Offices

of Stephen P. White, 101 West Broadway, Suite 1950, San Diego, California, 92101, as

Pro Bono Counsel for Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff does not have a contact number on the

docket, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to contact Attorney Stephen White at 619-702-

3753. 

Pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.3(g)(2), Pro Bono Counsel shall file, within

fourteen (14) days of this Order if possible, a formal written Notice of Substitution of

Attorney signed by both Plaintiff and his newly appointed counsel. Such substitution

shall be considered approved by the Court upon its filing, and Pro Bono Counsel shall

thereafter be considered attorney of record for Plaintiff for all purposes during further

proceedings before this Court and in this matter only. See S.D.CAL.CIVLR 83.3(g)(1),

(2).

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\2010\10-2599\10cv2599-Order-appt-counsel.wpd 3 10cv2599 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 71 Filed 05/12/14 Page 3 of 4
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

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve Mr. White with a copy

of this Order at the address listed above upon filing. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.3(f)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\2010\10-2599\10cv2599-Order-appt-counsel.wpd 4 10cv2599 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 71 Filed 05/12/14 Page 4 of 4