Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDI NIEVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01020-ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL AND GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

(Docs. 22, 23)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Sandi Nieves is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Introduction

On September 13, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”)

and issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. (Docs. 21, 22.) The Court advised Plaintiff she could file objections 

to the findings and recommendations within fourteen days, or by September 27, 2023. (Doc. 22.)

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading styled as “Objection to Magistrate 

Judges Findings and Recommendations.” (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff argues the Court has a “definite 

upper hand with all issues” and an “unfair advantage” over her; she has “plenty of evidence, 

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 5
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

merit, proof, case laws, amendment violations, etc.”; and is allowing Defendant Allison to “get 

away with her abuse of power, fraud, thievery, to prisoners such as [Plaintiff].” (Id.) However, 

Plaintiff does not address or dispute the factual findings of the magistrate judge. Particularly in 

light of her limited access to the law library, Plaintiff instead requests the appointment of counsel 

and an “extension of 90 days,” presumably to file substantive objections to the findings and 

recommendations.

II. Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions. 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 

952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). The district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 

indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 

U.S. 296, 298 (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 seeks 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional 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). A 

likelihood of success on the merits determination is not the same as that required at screening; at 

screening, the Court is tasked with determining whether a plaintiff merely has sufficiently and 

plausibly alleged a cause of action or claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.

The Court must also evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Plaintiff has prosecuted his claims competently 

and advanced his case towards trial. Specifically, a review of the docket reflects Plaintiff has 

articulated a broad array of thoughtful arguments in connection with discovery and merits-based 

motions and oppositions. Therefore, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims in light of 

their complexity. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s 

denial of request for appointment of counsel where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a good 

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 5
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

understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions”). 

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and his 

incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The test is whether exceptional 

circumstances exist. As further addressed below, here, exceptional circumstances are not present.

There is little doubt most pro se litigants “find it difficult to articulate [their] claims,” and 

would be better served with the assistance of counsel. Id. For this reason, in the absence of 

counsel, federal courts employ procedures that are highly protective of a pro se litigant’s rights. 

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se complaint to less stringent 

standard) (per curiam). In fact, where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court 

must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of liberal 

construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, where a pro se litigant can “articulate his claims” in light of the 

relative complexity of the matter, the “exceptional circumstances” that might warrant the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009). See Robinson v. Cryer, No. 1:20-cv-00622-HBK (PC), 2021 WL 9541411, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021) (“Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he 

faces the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face”). 

The Court has screened the original and FAC and finds this case does not present serious 

or exceptional circumstances. Other pending or closed cases in this Court also concern the 

forfeiture of JPay tablets and associated monetary losses. E.g., Gosztyla v. Allison, No. 1:22-cv00763-JLT-HBK (PC), 2023 WL 5353714, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2023), F.&R. adopted, 

2023 WL 5806982 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2023); Reid v. Allison, No. 1:22-cv-1437-JLT-CDB (PC), 

2023 WL 2143196, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023), recon. denied, 2023 WL 2277538 (E.D. Cal. 

Feb. 28, 2023); Ripple v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:22-cv-01102-HBK (PC), 2022 WL 

16573690, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022), F.&R. adopted, 2023 WL 2088352 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 

2023). The Court’s determination that the FAC fails to state a claim is not due to complexity of 

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 09/25/23 Page 3 of 5
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

the case nor an inability to articulate the claims. Even under a liberal construction, the underlying 

factual allegations simply do not support Plaintiff’s claims of constitutional violations. 

Because this case does not present extraordinary circumstances and Plaintiff is able to 

articulate her claims, the Court declines to seek and request voluntary counsel on Plaintiff’s 

behalf. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for court-appointed counsel is denied.

III. Extension of Time

In conjunction with the request for a court-appointed attorney, Plaintiff seeks a ninetyday extension of time, presumably for such attorney to review Plaintiff’s case and file objections 

on her behalf. Because Plaintiff must continue to represent herself, a three-month extension of 

time is unwarranted. 

In its findings and recommendations, the Court provided Plaintiff with applicable legal 

standards, which she can use for guidance when preparing her objections. Nonetheless, given 

Plaintiff’s limited access to the law library and her pro se status, the Court will grant Plaintiff 

thirty days to file objections to the findings and recommendations of September 13, 2023. (Doc. 

22.)

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED in part; and

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 09/25/23 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff may file 

objections to the findings and recommendations for the assigned District 

Judge’s consideration. 

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the Court’s consideration of the findings 

and recommendations of September 13, 2023, without objections or further input from 

Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2023 ___________________ _

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 24 Filed 09/25/23 Page 5 of 5