Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02507/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02507-4/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

09cv2507-AJB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. COTA, CDCR #C-26012,

Plaintiff,

v.

L.E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv2507-AJB (BLM)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

[ECF No. 43];

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 46];

AND

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 47]

On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time. ECF No. 43. In support,

Plaintiff states that he submitted his amended complaint to the Pelican Bay State Prison law

library staff on March 1, 2011 to copy and mail the document to the Court. Id. at 1. On March

6, 2011, Plaintiff inquired about the status of his complaint, and on March 7, 2011, one day

before it was due (see ECF No. 42), Plaintiff learned that the library staff had forwarded the

complaint to the Facility Captain for review because the document exceeded 100 pages. ECF No.

Case 3:09-cv-02507-AJB-BLM Document 48 Filed 03/28/11 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

1 In his initial complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and

Fourteenth Amendment, as well as separate conspiracy claims. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint, and this Court subsequently issued a Report and Recommendation for an Order Granting in Part

and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 20 & 35. The Honorable Judge Benitez adopted this

Court’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. ECF No. 42. As a result of Judge Benitez’s Order, Plaintiff’s First

Amendment retaliation claim, his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, his Fourteenth Amendment equal

protection claim against Defendant Scribner, and his conspiracy claim all survived. ECF Nos. 35 & 42. Plaintiff’s First

Amendment freedom of association claim was dismissed without leave to amend, but Plaintiff was granted leave to

amend his Eighth Amendment claim, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants

Bishop, Crabtree, Duarte, Stratton, and Tamayo. ECF Nos. 35 & 42.

2 09cv2507-AJB (BLM)

43 at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff requested a 20-day extension of the March 8, 2011 deadline in

order to give prison officials time to review his amended complaint. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also

requested that the Court issue an order directing prison officials to copy and mail the amended

complaint if the Court does not receive the complaint by March 28, 2011. Id. However, on

March 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Purposed [sic] Order, in which he seeks a Court order

directing the relevant prison staff to immediately process his amended complaint. ECF No. 46.

In support, Plaintiff states that on March 10, 2011, he received a memorandum from the Facility

Captain denying his request to photocopy his amended complaint. Id. at 2, Ex. C. Plaintiff

contends that prison officials are contravening Judge Benitez’s Order, which required Plaintiff to

file his amended complaint by or before March 8, 2011 (ECF No. 42), and obstructing Plaintiff’s

access to the Court. ECF No. 46 at 2. In denying Plaintiff’s photocopy request, the Facility

Captain cited a prison regulation that states: “In no event shall staff be required to duplicate a

legal document exceeding 100 pages in length in the absence of a court order directing the

duplication.” ECF No. 46, Ex. C. The Facility Captain stressed that the court order allowing

Plaintiff to amend his complaint is insufficient to justify copying his 126 page amended complaint

because “it does not say anything about how much must be included in the amendment.” Id.

Plaintiff does not specify whether his amended complaint consists largely of exhibits, but

his original complaint was 35 pages in length with an additional 95 pages of exhibits. ECF No. 1.

Given the length of Plaintiff’s original complaint and his remaining causes of action1

, the Court

will allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that is 35 pages or less with exhibits that total

95 pages or less. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion directing the Pelican Bay

prison staff to file Plaintiff’s amended complaint at its current length, so long as the body of the

Case 3:09-cv-02507-AJB-BLM Document 48 Filed 03/28/11 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 09cv2507-AJB (BLM)

complaint constitutes no more than 35 pages and the additional exhibits constitute no more than

95 pages. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file his amended

complaint. Plaintiff may amend his complaint in accordance with this Order, this Court’s Report

and Recommendation (ECF No. 35), and Judge Benitez’s Order (ECF No. 42) on or before April

19, 2011. 

On March 25, 2011, Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 47. In

support, Plaintiff states that he is receiving assistance from a fellow prisoner because Plaintiff has

“no experience in legal knowledge and/or skills to litigate this case.” Id. Plaintiff further asserts

that the prisoner who is assisting him possesses only “limited legal knowledge and/or skills to

litigate this case.” Id. 

The Constitution provides no 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). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional circumstances demands at least “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits

and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the

legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted numerous pleadings and motions without the

assistance of counsel. In addition to the three motions addressed in this Order, Plaintiff has

submitted a lengthy complaint (ECF No. 1), a successful motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(ECF No. 2), two previous motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 3 & 31), a motion to correct a

defendant’s last name (ECF No. 8), a motion for extension of time to file an opposition (ECF No.

24), a motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 28), an opposition to a motion to dismiss

(ECF No. 34), and an objection to this Court’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39).

From the Court’s review of these documents, it is apparent that Plaintiff has a sufficient

grasp of his case and the issues involved, and he is able to adequately articulate the factual and

legal basis of his claims. The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous requests for counsel (see ECF Nos.

Case 3:09-cv-02507-AJB-BLM Document 48 Filed 03/28/11 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 09cv2507-AJB (BLM)

5 & 32), and Plaintiff’s current request does not provide any new facts justifying such an

extraordinary remedy. Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances”

at this time, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of

Counsel. See, e.g., Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2011

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02507-AJB-BLM Document 48 Filed 03/28/11 Page 4 of 4