Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01165/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01165-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Baires
Defendant
James E. Bryant
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. BAIRES,

Defendant.

Case No. 08cv1165 MJL (PCL)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE

TO DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 36.)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff James E. Bryant is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for an

Order Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 596 for the Taking of Plaintiff’s Deposition

Before Magistrate Judge Lewis or Presiding Judge and Motion to Appoint Counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). (Doc. No. 36.) For the reasons set forth below, leave to depose Plaintiff

with Magistrate Judge Lewis available by telephone during deposition is GRANTED and

Plaintiff’s motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

A. Leave to Depose Plaintiff

Plaintiff requests his deposition be taken via video conference before Judge Peter C.

Lewis at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison. (Doc. No. 36, 1.) 

Plaintiff bases his request to have Judge Peter Lewis, or the Presiding Judge, present by video

conference because “plaintiff is not represented by counsel, and unknowledgeable of required

procedures.” (Id.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01165-MJL -PCL Document 42 Filed 03/09/10 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

08 CV 1165 MJL (PCL)

2

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party in a civil case may take the

deposition of a person confined in prison only with leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

30(a)(2)(B) (WEST 2009). However, the Federal Rules make no provision for the presence of

the presiding judge at a deposition of a party and Plaintiff has cited no authority in support of his

request other than his lack of counsel in this litigation. 

As Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per and is currently in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Ironwood State Prison, leave of court for the

taking of Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The deposition of James E. Bryant may be taken at California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison upon reasonable notice as provided by Rule 30(b). 

Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis will be available by telephone on the noticed date and time of

the deposition to settle grievous disputes between the parties. This deposition must be taken

BEFORE the deadline of June 30, 2010 imposed by this Court in the Order Granting Motion to

Modify Scheduling Order filed concurrently with this Order.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff “further seeks an[] order of court for the appointment of counsel for these

proceeding[s] for the protections of rights and the insurance of a fair process on behalf of

plaintiff who is not a lawyer.” (Doc. No. 36, 2.) 

Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that “[t]he court may

request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” and thus confers upon a

district court the discretion to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also United States

v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 803-804 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “[i]n an appropriate

case, a federal court has a duty under section 1915[e] to assist a party in obtaining counsel

willing to serve for little or no compensation”).

However, the court may appoint counsel under Section 1915(e) only under “exceptional

circumstances.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (citation omitted). “A finding of exceptional

circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

Case 1:08-cv-01165-MJL -PCL Document 42 Filed 03/09/10 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

08 CV 1165 MJL (PCL)

3

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 on request of counsel under section 1915[e].” Id. (citations and internal

quotations omitted).

Plaintiff has not made the showing required for appointment of counsel in civil cases. 

First, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. At this point in the

proceedings, the parties are still engaged in the discovery process and no decision has been

rendered on Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Summary Judgement. (Doc. No. 26.) Therefore, the

likelihood of success is not determinable at this point in the litigation.

Regarding the second prong of the analysis, Plaintiff puts forth several arguments in

support of his request for appointed counsel. Specifically, Plaintiff claims he is not competent

enough to be his own advocate in this matter. (Doc. No. 36, 2.) However, this factor does not

show exceptional circumstances to Plaintiff’s case. Instead, this issue appears indicative of

difficulties which any incarcerated litigant would have proceeding pro se. Moreover, to date,

Plaintiff has shown no lack of ability to articulate his claims pro se. The Court notes Plaintiff has

filed the operative complaint (Doc. No. 12) preceded by his original complaint (Doc. No. 1), two

Oppositions in response to Defendants’ Motions (Doc. No. 22; 33), the instant Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (doc. No. 36) , and a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 26.) 

His filings are fairly organized, responsive and present the issues and arguments with adequate

clarity and efficiency.

Furthermore, pro se litigants are afforded some leniency to compensate for their lack of

legal training. “In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe

the pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). This requirement of liberality applies to

motions. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal

citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff may be assured his pro se status will be taken into account

by the Court reviewing his papers or presiding over any other proceeding in Plaintiff’s case.

Case 1:08-cv-01165-MJL -PCL Document 42 Filed 03/09/10 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

08 CV 1165 MJL (PCL)

4

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED

without prejudice.

DATE: March 5, 2010 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable M. James Lorenz

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cv-01165-MJL -PCL Document 42 Filed 03/09/10 Page 4 of 4