Stone v. Freitas, No. 1:2014cv01267 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 9 ; ORDER GRANTING Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations 8 . Plaintiff shall FILE any objections to the Findings and Recommendations no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of service of this order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/18/2014. (Timken, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER M. STONE, 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 1:14-cv-01267-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BETTY LORRAINE FREITAS, Defendants. _____________________________________/ (Docs. 8, 9) 17 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Christopher M. Stone (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 12, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On 21 December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file objections and 22 an amended complaint, and on December 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the 23 appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). (Docs. 8, 9.) In the alternative, 24 Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file objections. (Docs. 8; 9, 5.) 25 26 II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff contends that counsel must be appointed because he is unable to afford an 27 attorney, he needs more time and at least minimal supervision by an attorney to adhere to the 28 Court’s procedural rules, he has a medical condition and scheduled surgery that impact his ability 1 to “handle the legal stress and rigorous demands of fulfilling all legal requirements presently[,]” 2 and Defendant’s actions “constitute actual malice.” (Doc. 9, 2-3.) Plaintiff argues that a “‘Civil 3 Gideon’ is necessary in this case due to the major life altering [e]ffects of [D]efendant’s actions 4 that will perpetuate indefinitely if they are not forced to answer to [P]laintiff’s claims.” 5 (Doc. 9, 4.) 6 Plaintiff, however, does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in 7 this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 8 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2516-17 (2011) (constitutional 9 right to appointment of counsel, sometimes referred to as a “Civil Gideon,” is limited to criminal 10 cases and criminal contempt proceedings). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of 11 counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances 12 exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In 13 making this determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the 14 ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 15 involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 16 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 17 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331. 18 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 19 assuming that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 20 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with 21 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 22 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record, 23 the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 24 970. 25 While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status, the 26 test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d 27 at 1331 (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant 28 will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test 2 1 is whether exceptional circumstances exist and here, they do not; the record in this case 2 demonstrates that Plaintiff is more than capable of articulating his claims. 3 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED; 6 2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections is GRANTED; and 7 3. Plaintiff shall FILE any objections to the Findings and Recommendations no later 8 than fourteen (14) days after the date of service of this order. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.