Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01602/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01602-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. CASILLAS, J. NUTT, M.D.

CARPIO, J. OLIVO, HECTOR LOPEZ,

D. RODERICK, E. URIBE, E.

CASTILLO, R. LIZARRAGA, B.

HATFIELD, J. SALCEDA, DOE 1, P.

ALANIS,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(d)

& (e)(1) [ECF NO. 35]

Plaintiff Gustavo McKenzie, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Defendants violated the First

Amendment when they retaliated against him for filing internal

grievances and a civil action against prison employees. (Compl. 7-

17, ECF No. 1; Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. Proceed In Forma Pauperis

1, ECF No. 4.)1 Before the Court is McKenzie's Motion for

1

 Because the Complaint is not consecutively paginated, the

Court will cite to the page numbers assigned by the electronic case

filing system.

1 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 11
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

Appointment of Counsel, filed nunc pro tunc to January 2, 2013 [ECF

No. 35].

I. Procedural Background

This lawsuit relates to a civil rights action McKenzie filed

on March 25, 2010, against several prison employees in California

Superior Court ("underlying action"). That case was subsequently

removed to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California on December 8, 2010. See McKenzie v. Ellis,

No. 10cv1490–LAB (MDD), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118373, at *1-2 (S.D.

Cal. July 18, 2011) (report and recommendation regarding

defendants' motion to dismiss complaint). In the underlying

action, McKenzie claimed that Defendants violated his First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights when they refused to accommodate his

religious dietary needs. Id. at *1-5. Plaintiff's federal claims

were dismissed without leave to amend, and his state claims were

remanded to the California Superior Court on September 13, 2012. 

McKenzie v. Ellis, No. 10cv1490-LAB [MDD] 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

130973, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2012) (order dismissing federal

claims and remanding case to state court).

McKenzie filed his Complaint in this matter on June 27, 2012,

naming thirteen Defendants [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants retaliated against him for filing internal grievances

and the underlying lawsuit. (Compl. 7-17, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff

maintains that Defendants have engaged in various retaliatory

actions, including breaking Plaintiff's typewriter; writing a false

rule violation report; "maliciously" imposing various sanctions as

punishment; refusing to accommodate Plaintiff's religious dietary

requirements even though he had a "Religious Diet Card"; removing

2 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 11
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

McKenzie from the "Religious Diet List"; threatening to fight

Plaintiff; denying McKenzie "allowable books, hygiene items[,] and

some collectible postcards[]" that were provided to everyone else

housed in Plaintiff's unit; and arbitrarily rejecting McKenzie's

inmate grievances. (Id. at 8-17.)

On October 2, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Revoke

Plaintiff's IFP Status and Dismiss [ECF No. 20] ("Motion to Revoke

and Dismiss"). Defendants maintain that McKenzie has three strikes

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that he is not in

imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Defs.' Mot. Revoke &

Dismiss 2, ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition, claiming

that Defendants' Motion to Revoke and Dismiss was untimely pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i) and that he does

not have three strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Revoke & Dismiss 5-11, ECF No. 22.)2 Defendants

filed their Reply on November 2, 2012, asserting that their motion

was timely filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(a)(1)(A)(ii) and that McKenzie failed to show that he does not

have three strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(Defs.' Reply Pl.'s Opp'n 1-2, ECF No. 23.) Defendants' Motion to

Revoke and Dismiss is currently pending before the Honorable Roger

T. Benitez.

Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Entry of Default against

Defendant J. Nutt, which was filed nunc pro tunc to November 30,

2012 [ECF No. 29]. Nutt filed an opposition on December 11, 2012,

stating that he timely responded in this case before McKenzie moved

2 The Court cites to the page numbers assigned by the

electronic case filing system.

3 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 11
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. (Def.'s Opp'n Mot. Entry Default 2, ECF No. 30.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply on December 26, 2012 [ECF No. 32]. The

Honorable Roger T. Benitez denied McKenzie's Motion for Entry of

Default on January 3, 2013 [ECF No. 33].

Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion") was

filed nunc pro tunc to January 2, 2013 [ECF No. 35]. McKenzie

asserts that appointed counsel is appropriate for several reasons: 

(1) Defendants' ongoing retaliation is resulting in "periodic

denials of access to the facility's law library"; (2) his medical

condition (open-angle glaucoma) has resulted in the loss of vision

in his right eye, which has "become a major impediment in the

preparation of documents"; (3) he is a "layman at law"; and (4) he

has been unable to obtain independent counsel. (Mot. Appointment

Counsel 5, ECF No. 35.)

II. Discussion

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in

prosecuting this civil action. The Constitution does not provide a

right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. 

Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 

Nonetheless, district courts maintain discretion to appoint counsel

for indigent persons. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(1) (West 2012). 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 petitioner to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved." Neither of these factors is

dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision . . . .

4 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 4 of 11
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

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

(alteration in original) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,

954 (9th Cir. 1983)). When examining a plaintiff's ability to

proceed pro se, courts generally require, as a threshold matter,

the plaintiff to show that (1) he is indigent, and (2) he "has made

a reasonably diligent effort to secure counsel." Bailey v.

Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993); see also Cota v.

Scribner, No. 09cv2507-AJB (BLM), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20460, at

*2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012).

McKenzie alleges that he has "writ[en] to numerous pro bono

attorneys, and legal clinics, with no response." (Mot. Appointment

Counsel 5, ECF No. 35.) Thus, Plaintiff appears to have made a

reasonably diligent effort to obtain counsel. See Cota, 2012 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 20460, at *3 (holding that the plaintiff had shown a

reasonably diligent effort to secure counsel by "stat[ing] that he

attempted to secure counsel on his own[]" (emphasis added) (citing

Bailey, 835 F. Supp. at 552)). Appointment of counsel is

nonetheless inappropriate at this time because McKenzie's Complaint

may not withstand Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.

20]. See Harris v. Duc, No. S CIV 06-2138 DOC, 2009 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 68786, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2009) (denying motion to

appoint counsel due to insufficient information to assess

likelihood of success on merits); see also Bailey, 835 F. Supp. at

552.

Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma

pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), alleging that McKenzie

has accumulated three strikes within the meaning of the statute,

and he is not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. (Defs.'

5 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 5 of 11
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

Mot. Revoke & Dismiss 2, ECF No. 20.) Judge Benitez issued a

minute order indicating that the motion would be submitted on the

papers; the hearing date was vacated; and the court intended to

issue a written order [ECF No. 24].

Section 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma

pauperis if, while incarcerated, he has brought at least three

prior lawsuits "in a court of the United States that [were]

dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or

fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . ." 

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g) (West 2006). A defendant who challenges a

plaintiff's in forma pauperis status bears the initial burden of

providing the court with documentation of prior dismissals that

count as strikes under § 1915(g). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1120 (9th Cir. 2005). After a defendant has produced sufficient

evidence to make a prima facie case for revocation of a plaintiff's

in forma pauperis status, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who

"bears the ultimate burden of persuading the court that § 1915(g)

does not preclude [in forma pauperis] status." Id.

"[O]nce a prisoner has accumulated three strikes, he is

prohibited by § 1915(g) from pursuing any other action [in forma

pauperis] in federal court unless he is under 'imminent danger of

serious physical injury.'" McNeil v. Eply, No. 09-2485 BEN (CAB),

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120520, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2009)

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). "Prisoners qualify for the

exception based on the alleged conditions at the time the complaint

was filed." Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.

2007); see also id. at 1056-57 (holding that plaintiff satisfied

the imminent danger exception in § 1915(g) because he alleged that

6 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 6 of 11
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 defendants' ongoing practice of housing plaintiff with

contagious cell mates placed him at risk of contracting serious

disease). "[T]he exception applies if the complaint makes a

plausible allegation that the prisoner faced imminent danger of

serious physical injury at the time of filing." Id. at 1055

(internal quotation marks omitted).

McKenzie does not make any plausible allegations that he faced

imminent serious bodily injury on June 27, 2012, the date he filed

his Complaint. See id. Although Plaintiff contends that Defendant

Uribe threatened to fight McKenzie six months earlier, on January

22, 2011, Plaitniff does not state that the threat is ongoing, nor

does he maintain that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily

injury. (See Compl. 13, EFC No. 1; Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Revoke &

Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 22); see also Tierney v. Atkins, No. 12-00308

SOM/KSC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76982, at *6 (D. Haw. June 4, 2012). 

"'[A] prisoner's allegation that he faced danger in the past' does

not satisfy § 1915(g)'s imminent danger exception[]." Tierney,

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76982, at *6 (quoting Abdul-Akbar v.

McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 311 (3rd Cir. 2001)); see also Cervantes,

493 F.3d at 1053 ("[T]he availability of the exception turns on the

conditions a prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed,

not at some earlier or later time."). Thus, if the imminent danger

exception in § 1915(g) does not apply, and Plaintiff has three

strikes under the statute, he will lose his ability to proceed

without the prepayment of filing fees. See Griffin v. U.S.

Marshals, No. 10cv2246 H (CAB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127779, at *5

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2010) (denying in forma pauperis status and

dismissing for failure to pay filing fee).

7 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 7 of 11
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

In support of their Motion to Revoke and Dismiss, Defendants

have identified six of Plaintiff's previous cases that they contend

count as five strikes under § 1915(g),3 along with supporting

documents. (Defs.' Mot. Revoke & Dismiss Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A.

3-5, ECF No. 20; id. Attach. #2 Defs.' Req. Judicial Notice, 1-60.) 

In his Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Revoke, McKenzie argues

that (1) the motion is untimely; (2) he does not have three strikes

under § 1915(g); and (3) the district court should not take

judicial notice of Defendants' submissions. (See Opp'n Defs.' Mot.

Revoke & Dismiss 4-11, ECF No. 22.)

Because Judge Benitez has not yet ruled on Defendants' Motion

Revoke and Dismiss, it is too early for this Court to assess

Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. The resolution of

Defendants' pending motion is uncertain, and if granted, whether

McKenzie will pay filing fees or post security for the filing fees

is unknown.

McKenzie has also failed to show that exceptional

circumstances justify the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

insists that he lacks sufficient legal knowledge to proceed without

the assistance of counsel. (Mot. Appointment Counsel 5, ECF No.

3

 Defendants maintain that Plaintiff's following prior cases

count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g): (1) McKenzie v.

Woodford, Case No. 1:04-cv-05903-AWI-WMW (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007)

(dismissed); (2) McKenzie v. Ellis, Case No. 3:10-cv-01490-LAB

(MDD) (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012) (federal claims dismissed and

remaining claims remanded to state court); (3) McKenzie v. Alameda, Case No. CV-02-07551 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2002) (dismissed),

combined with Ninth Circuit dismissal in McKenzie v. Alameda, Case

No. 03-55221 (9th Cir. 2003); (4) McKenzie v. Woodford, Case No.

1:06-cv-00062-OWW-LJO (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2006) (dismissed); and

(5) McKenzie v. Woodford, Case No. 1:06-cv-01490-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal.

Feb. 15, 2007) (dismissed). (Defs.' Mot. Revoke & Dismiss Attach.

#1 Mem. P. & A. 3-5, ECF No. 20; see also id. Attach. #2 Req.

Judicial Notice 1-60.)

8 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 8 of 11
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

35.) This argument is unpersuasive, however, as McKenzie has

demonstrated in his Complaint that he can adequately articulate the

facts to support his causes of action. See Pough v. Almager, No.

08cv1498 JM(RBB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51782, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal.

May 26, 2010) (finding no exceptional circumstance due to factual

complexity because plaintiff grasped "the legal issues involved"

and was able to "adequately set[] forth a factual basis for his

claims[]"); Shields v. Davis, No. C 07-0157 RMW (PR), 2008 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 90687, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2008) (denying

motion for appointment of counsel because the case was not

particularly complex). McKenzie is an experienced litigant. He

possesses a sufficient understanding of his claims, the facts, and

the law to continue to represent himself.

McKenzie further asserts that he has suffered "periodic

denials of access to the facility's law library . . . ." (Mot.

Appointment Counsel 5, ECF No. 35.) "However, the Constitution

does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a law library. 

Prison officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner, and

place in which library facilities are used." Lindquist v. Idaho

State Bd. of Corr., 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation

omitted). Plaintiff has timely filed an Opposition to Defendants'

Motion Revoke and Dismiss [ECF No. 22], as well as a Motion for

Clerk's Entry of Default [ECF No. 29], and a Reply to Defendant

Nutt's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk's Entry of

Default [ECF No. 32]. McKenzie also filed the current Motion,

complete with citations to relevant authority. (See Mot.

Appointment Counsel 7-8, ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff has not shown that

he does not have reasonable access to a law library or other means

9 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 9 of 11
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

of conducting legal research, or that he is subjected to burdens

beyond those ordinarily experienced by pro se plaintiffs.

Finally, McKenzie maintains that he suffers from open-angle

glaucoma, for which he has undergone several surgeries, and from

which he has lost the ability to see with his right eye. (Id. at

5.) Plaintiff urges that his medical condition has "become a major

impediment in the preparation of documents . . . ." (Id.) 

McKenzie has not demonstrated how his physical infirmity impairs

his ability to proceed pro se. Based on the filings to date,

Plaintiff appears to be able to adequately present his claims. See

Jones v. Frazesn, No. 2:07-cv-02769 RCT, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

49639, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2009) (finding no exceptional

circumstance when plaintiff claimed his pain medication impaired

his ability to read and write).

McKenzie has not established that he is unable to proceed as a

pro se litigant. See Harris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68786, at *11-

13 (finding no exceptional circumstances, in part, because

plaintiff was able to submit adequate documentation and motion

work); see also Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103

(9th Cir. 2004) (reviewing district court's denial of appointed

counsel for abuse of discretion and explaining that a finding of

exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel

requires an evaluation of plaintiff's ability to articulate his

claims); Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996)

(holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

plaintiff appointed counsel, in part because plaintiff adequately

filed a complaint and other pretrial materials). Plaintiff's

situation is similar to that of other incarcerated pro se

10 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 10 of 11
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

plaintiffs. McKenzie has demonstrated that he is able to

adequately present his claims. See Harris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

68786, at *11-13; Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; Plummer, 87 F.3d at

1033.

Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances that

entitle him to appointed counsel. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. 

The Court denies McKenzie'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); see also Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Plaintiff Gustavo McKenzie's Motion for

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2013 _____________________________

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Benitez

All parties of record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\_1983\PRISONER\MCKENZIE1602\Order re Mot for Counsel.wpd 11 12cv1602 BEN (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01602-BEN-RBB Document 36 Filed 04/16/13 Page 11 of 11