Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01505-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Hicks
Defendant
Lorenzo Darnell Hutson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO DARNELL HUTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HICKS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01505-AWI-SAB-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF NO. 14)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 15)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Hutson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time in which to 

file a first amended complaint in compliance with the January 20, 2016, order dismissing the 

original complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On February 8, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has not previously sought 

the appointment of counsel.

Regarding Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, Plaintiff indicates that he is moving to 

a different housing unit within the same facility (CSP Corcoran), and will not have access to his 

Case 1:15-cv-01505-AWI-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/09/16 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

legal property until he has been transferred. Plaintiff also indicates that his “jailhouse lawyer” 

was transferred to another facility, and it is “challenging to obtain advisement.” 

Plaintiff is advised that he initiated this action, and is responsible for litigating it. The 

issue in this action is not complex. The complaint was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to 

allege facts to support his claim that Defendant subjected him to racial discrimination within the 

meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court provided Plaintiff with the appropriate legal 

authority. The Court finds that, based on Plaintiff’s transfer to another housing unit, good cause 

exists to grant Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time to file a first amended complaint.

Regarding Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff is advised that 

there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent Plaintiff 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 

District 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 195(e)(1). Rand, 113 

F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

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).

In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). As noted, Plaintiff is proceeding on a 

claim of racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. The legal issue in this action is not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth 

his arguments in the complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff argues that it is difficult for him to 

proceed without the appointment of counsel. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone 

entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it is difficult for Plaintiff to litigate this action does 

Case 1:15-cv-01505-AWI-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/09/16 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

not constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a 

pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro 

se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”)

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a first

amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service of this order and;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01505-AWI-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 3