Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02621/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02621-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of

Documents Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Pickens621misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD D. PICKENS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-2621 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

(Docket Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison personnel. On June 1, 2005, the

Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and concluded that

one of Plaintiff’s claims was cognizable and dismissed one of Plaintiff’s claims with

leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 17, 2005 and another

complaint on December 29, 2005. Plaintiff also filed two motions for appointment of

counsel and two motions for production of documents. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s

motions (docket nos. 21, 22, 23, and 24) without prejudice. 

*Original filed 3/21/06

Case 3:04-cv-02621-TEH Document 35 Filed 03/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of

Documents Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Pickens621misc 2

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. It is unclear whether

Plaintiff’s first motion (docket no. 21) was intended to be filed in this Court, because the

motion includes the Del Norte County Superior Court caption and the superior court’s

case number is crossed out and replaced with this Court’s case number. Plaintiff should

not duplicate and file any motions directed to the superior court’s action in this Court.

In his motions, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is indigent

and a layman at law. Plaintiff alleges that he cannot properly prepare this case for trial

and conduct discovery and investigations due to his incarceration. However, there is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to

“request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of

counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). 

Case 3:04-cv-02621-TEH Document 35 Filed 03/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of

Documents Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Pickens621misc 3

The Court concludes that appointment of counsel is premature and unnecessary at

this time. The Court has not reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint and ordered service

on Defendants. Plaintiff has aptly presented his claims so far. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 21, 24) are DENIED without prejudice. 

B. Motion for Production of Documents

Plaintiff filed two requests for Defendants to produce documents including any 

reports regarding the April 26, 2003 incident. Once again, Plaintiff’s first request

includes the Del Norte County Superior Court caption with the superior court’s case

number crossed out and this Court’s case number listed. Plaintiff should not duplicate

and file any motions for the superior court’s action in this Court.

Plaintiff’s motions for production of documents are premature at this stage because

the Court has not ordered service of the amended complaint on the Defendants. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions (docket nos. 22, 23) are DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 21, 24) are DENIED

without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motions for production of documents (docket nos. 22, 23)

are DENIED without prejudice. The Court will review Plaintiff’s amended complaint in

a separate written order.

 It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/20/06 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02621-TEH Document 35 Filed 03/21/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of

Documents Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Pickens621misc 4

This is to certify that on , a copy of this ruling

was mailed to the following:

Todd D. Pickens

P-16993

CTF - Soledad 

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960-0705

Case 3:04-cv-02621-TEH Document 35 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4