Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00419/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00419-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Billinger
Plaintiff
Church
Defendant

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT BILLINGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHURCH, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-0419 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 

appointment of counsel. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for 

exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 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. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 

1983). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 23 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff requests that counsel be appointed for the limited purpose of assisting him in 

drafting an amended complaint or alternatively that the case be stayed until he is paroled in 

January 2017. ECF No. 22. He states that he has no legal education and has done everything he 

knows how to in order to state a claim. Id. In screening the original complaint, the court outlined 

the applicable legal standards for plaintiff and explained to him what he would have to show in 

order to state a claim. ECF No. 18. There is no evidence that plaintiff has tried to follow the 

court’s instructions or that he is unable to draft an amended complaint that states a claim without 

the assistance of counsel. Plaintiff’s request for counsel will be denied without prejudice and the 

court will extend plaintiff’s time to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff should refer to the 

instructions for filing an amended complaint contained in the court’s January 5, 2016 order. 

With respect to plaintiff’s alternative request that the case be stayed until January 2017, 

“the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 

for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 

Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the 

competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal 

to grant a stay must be weighed. Among these competing interests 

are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a 

stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 

required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured 

in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “Generally, stays should not be 

indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 

1066 (9th Cir. 2007). If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is 

required to justify it. Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s lack of 

legal education and counsel are circumstances faced by most inmates and do not warrant staying 

this case for a year. 

Plaintiff is reminded that if he wants to state a claim against Dr. Church, he must explain 

how Dr. Church is responsible for his injury. The original complaint explained only what the 

transportation officers did and, other than being listed as a defendant, Dr. Church was mentioned 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 23 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 3
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

only in the exhibits. ECF No. 1. However, even in the exhibits plaintiff did not explain what Dr. 

Church did or why Dr. Church was responsible. In drafting the amended complaint, plaintiff 

should not rely on exhibits to make his claims against Dr. Church. In other words, plaintiff must 

explain, in his own words, what Dr. Church did and why Dr. Church was responsible. For 

example, in a letter plaintiff sent after filing the complaint, he stated that Dr. Church “was the one 

to make that call that I be transfer[r]ed back to C-H-C-F Stockton by all mean[s] necessar[y] . . . 

and that he was sorry and he s[h]ould have let me stay till the morning so the ambulance would 

come.” ECF No. 14. The letter indicates that Dr. Church made the decision that plaintiff should 

be transferred by car rather than by ambulance, but plaintiff did not include these claims in his 

original complaint. If these are the claims plaintiff is trying to make, he needs to put them in his 

amended complaint and not in separately filed documents because the court will only look at the 

complaint to decide if plaintiff has stated a claim. 

Summary 

 Plaintiff’s request for counsel is denied at this time because plaintiff has not shown that he 

has tried to follow the court’s instructions for filing an amended complaint and is unable to. 

Plaintiff will be given additional time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s alternative request 

to stay the case until January 2017 is also denied because his lack of legal education and an 

attorney are common problems for inmates and are not enough reason to stay the case for a year. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is denied without 

prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 22) is denied. 

3. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty days, up to March 9, 2016, to file a first 

amended complaint. 

DATED: January 26, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 23 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 3