Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-36/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALEZ,

Defendant.

1:09-cv-01264 BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

(ECF No. 141)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 142)

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Gonzales (sued as L. Gonzalez) and Murrietta arising out of an alleged assault following the 

takedown of Plaintiff by Defendant Gonzales on June 9, 2008. A jury trial is set for April 28, 

2015.

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue to the Northern District 

of California in order to be appointed pro bono counsel. Plaintiff asserts that the reason for the 

change of venue is because the Eastern District of California does not refer pro se inmates to the 

pro bono project. (ECF No. 141.) On the same date, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 171 Filed 04/17/15 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

appointment of counsel, including a referral to the Federal Pro Bono Project with a request that 

counsel represent Plaintiff in this action. (ECF No. 142.) Defendants did not file responses; the 

motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

I. Motion to Change Venue

Plaintiff requests transfer of this action to the Northern District of California so that he 

may be referred to a Federal Pro Bono Project. 

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or 

to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil 

action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 

are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating 

that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b); 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole 

Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 

The events at issue here occurred at California State Prison, Corcoran, which is in the 

Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. Although Defendants’ residences are 

unknown, given their employment in Corcoran, California, they more than likely do not reside in 

the Northern District of California given the substantial geographical distance. Plaintiff therefore 

has failed to meet the initial threshold burden of demonstrating that this action could have been 

brought in the Northern District of California. Further, there is no indication that such a transfer 

would be convenient for the parties or witnesses, many of whom are employed at California State 

Prison, Corcoran. Defendants also have not consented to transfer.

To the extent Plaintiff asserts that the Eastern District of California does not request the 

voluntarily assistance of counsel, he is incorrect. The Court does not routinely refer requests for 

the appointment of counsel to the pro bono director for the Eastern District of California. Rather, 

the Court will request the voluntary assistance of counsel only in exceptional circumstances. As 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 171 Filed 04/17/15 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

discussed below, Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the 

appointment of counsel. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue shall be denied.

II. Motion for the Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff’s seeks the appointment of counsel because his medications—Oxcarbazepine and 

Gabapentin—cause him to suffer from short-term memory loss and to become disoriented and 

confused. Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel because he suffers from a condition 

called H-Pylori/Gastritis, which causes him constant stomach pain. Plaintiff further contends that 

he has a third-grade education and he would not know “what was going on” in this action without 

the assistance of other inmates. (ECF No. 142, Pl’s Dec. ¶4.) 

As he has been previously informed, 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 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.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. First, 

the Court cannot make a determination regarding the likelihood of success on Plaintiff’s claims. 

This matter will be presented to a jury for determination. Second, and more importantly, Plaintiff 

has been able to adequately articulate his claims in this action. Indeed, Plaintiff demonstrated his 

apparent ability to understand proceedings and present coherent arguments during the telephonic 

trial confirmation hearing on March 3, 2015. Further, with regard to Plaintiff’s medications, 

records before the Court indicate that the reported side effects of Gabapentin do not include 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 171 Filed 04/17/15 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

impaired cognition. (ECF No. 163.) Additionally, side effects from Oxcarbazepine, such as 

impaired concentration or confusion, are rare, and many of the side effects are more pronounced 

after a dose is taken and tend to fade with the passage of time (60-90) minutes. (Id.) As needed, 

Plaintiff’s temporal or short-term side effects from medication can be accommodated at trial by 

breaks, recesses or other means. Further, the issues in this case are straightforward and not 

complex.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 171 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 4