Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200102_0000014.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 14:26:39
Document Index: 486043078

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Stuckey v. Howard
Stuckey v. Howard
D. HOWARD, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, has filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the same time, Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, a motion for appointment of counsel, and an application for in forma pauperis status. Dkts. 2, 3, 5. The operative complaint in this matter is the amended complaint. Dkt. 9.
Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status is GRANTED. Dkt. 5. The total filing fee due is $350.00. The initial partial filing fee due for Plaintiff at this time is $1.09. A copy of this Order and the attached instruction sheet will be sent to Plaintiff, the Prison Trust Account Office and the Court's Financial Office.
Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. Dkt. 3. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 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 id. at 1525; 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.
The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are at an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel at this time is DENIED. Dkt. 3.
Lastly, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt. 2) is DENIED for failure to satisfying the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Prior to granting a preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse party is required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1). A motion for preliminary injunction therefore cannot be decided until the parties to the action are served, and they have not yet been served here. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A temporary restraining order (“TRO”) may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or the party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant's attorney (plaintiff himself in this case, as he proceeds pro se) certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). Plaintiff has not satisfied the aforementioned requirements. Furthermore, the Court must first screen the amended complaint for cognizable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief See Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Until the Court determines that the amended complaint contains cognizable claims, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is premature. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. 2.
This Order terminates Docket nos. 2, 3, and 5.
If the prisoner does not have sufficient funds in his/her account to pay the initial partial filing fee, the prison trust account office should forward the available funds, and carry the ...