Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02157/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

cal 

1 08cv2157

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON ANTHONY DONNAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRENDAN COOK, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv2157 DMS (AJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO THE

COURTS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR PRESCRIPTION 

EYEGLASSES; AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. Nos. 71 & 73.]

Plaintiff Leon Donnan, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed a request for access to the courts, a request for an extension of time and a request for

prescription eyeglasses. In addition, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. After a review

of the motions, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for access to the courts, DENIES Plaintiff’s

request for extension of time, DENIES Plaintiff’s request for eyeglasses, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

for appointment of counsel. 

A. Access to the Courts

Plaintiff argues that he is being denied access to the courts because the law library is inadequate

which is causing him to not be in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s

scheduling order. 

Case 3:08-cv-02157-DMS-AJB Document 74 Filed 08/30/10 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

2 08cv2157

1. Stage of Litigation

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820

(1977). To have meaningful access, states must provide prisoners with “adequate law libraries or

adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Id. at 828. In the leading case on the right of

access, the Supreme Court states that its “main concern” was “protecting the ability of an inmate to

prepare a petition or complaint.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828 n. 17 (quotation omitted). Other portions of

the Court’s discussion in Bounds also indicate that the Court did not intend to expand the right of access

past the pleading stage. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). According to the Court in

Bounds, a law library or legal assistance was necessary to formulate “a habeas corpus petition or civil

rights complaint.” Bound, 430 U.S. at 825. (emphasis added). 

Following the Supreme Court's discussion in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974) and

Bounds, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the constitutional

right of access requires a state to provide a law library or legal assistance only during the pleading stage

of a habeas or civil rights action. Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff

is beyond the pleading stages. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for access to the courts falls outside the

scope of the right of access to the courts set forth by the United States Supreme Court.

2. Proving an Access to the Courts Violation

Even if Plaintiff’s request were to fall within the scope of the right of access to the court, which

it does not, to establish a violation of this right, the Petitioner must allege facts sufficient to show that: 

(1) a nonfrivolous legal attack on his conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement has been

frustrated or impeded, and (2) he has suffered an actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55

(1996). The prisoner must demonstrate that he has suffered or will imminently suffer actual injury. Id.

at 348. “An inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law

library or legal assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical sense.” Id. The inmate must show that

the library “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. An “actual injury” is defined as “actual

prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

deadline or to present a claim.” Id.; see also Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994); Sands

v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (1989); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:08-cv-02157-DMS-AJB Document 74 Filed 08/30/10 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

3 08cv2157

Here, Plaintiff has not shown an actual injury from the “inadequate” law library. He makes a

conclusory statement that the inadequate law library is causing him to not be in compliance with the

scheduling order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He has not stated that he has missed any

filing deadlines or failed to present a claim. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to have

adequate access to the law library. 

B. Request for Extension of Time

Plaintiff filed a request for extension of time but does not indicate what deadline he seeks an

extension on. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for extension of time. 

C. Request for Eyeglasses 

Plaintiff argues that he has been denied free eyeglasses and that he is unable to read without one

in order to prepare for his case. Plaintiff has not indicated whether he has a prescription for eyeglasses

or whether he has lost an already existing eyeglass. Plaintiff presents a conclusory argument without

any factual support to justify relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for prescription

eyeglasses. 

D. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel claiming that he needs assistance because

he is being denied access to an adequate law library, denied prescription eyeglasses and being denied the

right to enjoy the U.S. Mail Delivery System. Plaintiff previously filed a motion to appoint counsel

which was denied on December 17, 2008. (Doc. No. 5.)

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp.

(In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have

the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court for

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). However, districts courts have discretion, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of

exceptional circumstances. See Mallard, 490 U.S. at 300-301 (U.S. 1989); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the

Case 3:08-cv-02157-DMS-AJB Document 74 Filed 08/30/10 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

4 08cv2157

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 argues that he is entitled to appointment of counsel because he is being denied access to

an adequate law library, denied prescription eyeglasses and being denied the right to enjoy the U.S. Mail

Delivery System. As discussed above, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to be granted access to the

courts and his request for prescription eyeglasses. In order to be eligible for a judicial request for

counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of exceptional

circumstances. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. In the present case, the Plaintiff has successfully litigated

his case to date. Moreover, because the factual basis surrounding Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants

are not so complex as a warrant appointment of counsel, Plaintiff has failed to show the existence of

exceptional circumstances. Finally, Plaintiff has not articulated any new facts or circumstances, since

his last motion for appointment of counsel, that would justify appointment of counsel in the present

motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for access to the courts, DENIES Plaintiff’s

request for extension of time; DENIES Plaintiff’s request for prescription eyeglasses; and DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2010

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-02157-DMS-AJB Document 74 Filed 08/30/10 Page 4 of 4