Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01853/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01853-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny Chase
Plaintiff
J. Lopez
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNY CHASE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LOPEZ,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01853-EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 13.)

On September 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and a 

motion for extension of time. (ECF No. 13.)

I. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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 will seek 

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

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/19/16 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

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

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).

Plaintiff argues that he needs counsel because he “really doesn’t understand this legal 

mail.” (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff also submits copies of medical records showing that he 

suffered injuries on July 23, 2016 including a scratch, scrape, dried blood, and swelling due to 

exposure to pepper spray. (ECF No. 13 at 12-13.) These conditions alone do not make Plaintiff’s 

case exceptional under the Ninth Circuit’s standards discussed above. At this early stage in the 

proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits. Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint was dismissed on August 1, 2016, for failure to 

state a claim, with leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Third Amended Complaint. 

Thus, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the Court has found cognizable 

claims. Moreover, based on the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately 

articulate his claims and respond to court orders. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from 

renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be 

denied, without prejudice.

II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff requests an extension of time but does not indicate what deadline he wishes to 

extend or why he needs an extension of time. Plaintiff merely states, “If I am late sending this 

back in can I get extension date?” (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the 

Court to grant him an extension of time. In the future, plaintiff must provide more information in 

his motions, clarifying what relief he seeks and why.

In light of the fact that plaintiff’s only pending deadline in this case is to file a Third 

Amended Complaint, the Court shall allow plaintiff additional time to do so. However, no further 

extensions of time shall be granted without a showing of good cause.

\\\

\\\

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/19/16 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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice; 

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in which 

to file a Third Amended Complaint, pursuant to the Court’s order of August 1, 

2016; and

3. No further extensions of time shall be granted without a showing of good 

cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 3