Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01133/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01133-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. TURNER, Civil

No.

13CV1133-WQH (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT AS MOOT; (2) 

DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL AND (3)

DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY

AND FOR MONETARY RELIEF

[Doc. Nos. 11, 15, 17, 24]

vs.

SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL; DOES;

SAN DIEGO SHERIFFS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed

pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss

the Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b) and this Court issued a Report and

Recommendation on October 8, 2013 to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust. (Doc.

No. 24.) Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion: (1) for default judgment; (2)

for appointment of counsel and (3) for a stay and for all monetary relief requested be

granted. (Doc. Nos. 11, 15, 17, 24.)

A. Motion for Default

On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default was effectively filed. 

(Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff provided no basis for his motion and in fact, stated that he had

“no way to serve the defendants.” (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) Prior to Plaintiff filign his motion

-1- 13cv1133-W01QcvH2345

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 25 Filed 11/19/13 PageID.<pageID> 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

for default, however, Defendants the County of San Diego filed a motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. No. 9.) And on July 25, 2013, within the time allowed to file a responsive

pleading, Defendants Torres, Hays and Saunders also filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc.

No. 12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default was premature and is moot. The

motion for default judgment is DENIED.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 15.) Plaintiff

specifically requested a “good civil rights” law firm or the contact information for the

“Law Offices of Johny Cocdrin’s in L.A. [sic]” He seeks counsel to assist him in

because his mail is delayed and he has back problems. (Id.) 

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case,

however, unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the

litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless,

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel

for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised only under "exceptional

circumstances." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). "A finding of

exceptional circumstances 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.' Neither of these issues is dispositive and both

must be viewed together before reaching a decision." Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims. (Doc. No. 1, 7.) 

Furthermore, it does not appear that the legal issuesinvolved are complex. See Wilborn

v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, "If all that was required

to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the

need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal

issues."). Moreover, it does not appear that Plaintiff has a likelihood of succes son the

-2- 13cv1133-W01QcvH2345

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 25 Filed 11/19/13 PageID.<pageID> 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

merits because the Court already recommended that the claims be dismissed for failing

to exhaust the required administrative procedures prior to filing. (Doc. No. 24.)

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests

of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time.

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

C. Motions to Stay and for Monetary Relief

Plaintiff filed two motions to stay with additional motions for the court to grant

his request for all monetary relief. (Doc. Nos. 17, 20.) Plaintiff’s basis for requesting

a stay is that he is incarcerated and has a “monetary problem.” (Doc. No. 17 at 1.) 

Plaintiff further requested that all relief sought in his First Amended Complaint be

granted due to defendants failure to answer the complaint. (Id. at 2.) In the subsequent

motion for stay, Plaintiff reiterates that he needs a stay because he is incarcerated and

lacks money. (Doc. No. 20 at 3.) Plaintiff also states he needs a stay because he has a

conflict of interest with the County of San Diego. (Id.) 

The district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997) (citing

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “The proponent of the stay

bears the burden of establishing its need.” Id. at 706. The Court considers the following

factors when ruling on a request to stay proceedings: (1) the possible damage which may

result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer

in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice, measured in terms

of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

expected to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th

Cir.1972) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962)). In

considering a stay order, the court should “balance the length of any stay against the

strength of the justification given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th

Cir.2000).

///

-3- 13cv1133-W01QcvH2345

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 25 Filed 11/19/13 PageID.<pageID> 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 finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that a stay of this

action is necessary. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and

Defendants’ motions to dismiss and recommended that the complaint be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust his claims before filing suit. (Doc. No. 24.) In

any event, granting a stay at this time will delay the case unnecessarily, especially given

the Court’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 

Moreover, it is not likely that a stay will simplify the issues in the case or resolve any

questions of law. For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES the motion to stay.

The Court further denies Plaintiff’s requests for monetary relief for the same

reasons addressed in the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. No. 24.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 19, 2013

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

-4- 13cv1133-W01QcvH2345

Case 3:13-cv-01133-WQH-BGS Document 25 Filed 11/19/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4