(PC) Williams v. Bell et al, No. 1:2016cv01584 - Document 97 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's Request to stay the proceedings and denying Request for appointment of counsel, without prejudice re 94 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/22/2019. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. BELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:16-cv-01584-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS, AND DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF No. 94] Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings and for appointment of counsel, filed June 17, 2019. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This action is proceeding against Defendants CEO Bell, Dr. Harris, Dr. Fischer, and Dr. 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on March 28, 2018. On March 29, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. Thereafter, the Court set the case for an early settlement conference. The parties attended the settlement conference on July 18, 2018, but the case did not settle. 1 1 The parties engaged in discovery, and Plaintiff filed two motions to compel discovery. 2 On April 12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. However, Plaintiff 3 refused to accept delivery of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because he was “dissatisfied 4 with the condition of the package as it appeared opened and torn.” (ECF No. 91, Chen Decl. ¶ 11 at 5 7.) On May 23, 2019, Defendants re-served Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of the motion for summary 6 judgment. (Id. ¶ 12 at 8.) On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendants’ lodging of his deposition transcript. 7 8 On May 21, 2019, the Court construed Plaintiff’s objections as a motion to suppress the deposition 9 transcript and directed Defendants to file a response. Defendants filed a response on May 31, 2019. 10 On June 12, 2019, the Court denied the motion to suppress the deposition transcript, and granted 11 Plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 92.) 12 The Court noted that “no further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary 13 circumstances, not present here.” (Id.) On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a documented titled as a “Reply” to Defendants’ opposition to 14 15 his motion to suppress his deposition transcript. (ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff moves to stay the 16 proceedings “due to Psychiatric Inpatient Program (PIP),” and appointment of counsel. (Id. at 1.) 17 Plaintiff submits that he has “been at the PIP level of care undergoing acute treatments to stabilize 18 major depression and cutting disorder by self injurious behaviors” since May 14, 2019. (Id. at 3, 19 Williams Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further contends that there is “limited property allowed and no physical 20 access to a law library to conduct meaningful research.” (Id., Williams Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims he 21 “won’t be able to effectively defend or prosecute this action while in PIP” and he has “yet to receive 22 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” (Id.) Plaintiff therefore seeks to stay the action so that 23 he “may focus on [his] PIP treatment.” (Id., Williams Decl. ¶ 5.) In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks 24 appointment of counsel. (Id.) Defendants filed an opposition on July 8, 2019. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time to do 25 26 so has expired. Local Rule 230(l). 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Motion to Stay Proceedings 4 “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 5 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American 6 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “The proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” 7 Id. at 708. The following factors shall be considered when determining if a stay is appropriate: (1) 8 “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity 9 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice, 10 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 11 could be expected to result from a stay.” Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) 12 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The Court should “balance the length of 13 any stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 14 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s medical health needs and any difficulties in 16 litigating this action, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is very capable of litigating this action and 17 responding to court orders and Defendants’ filings. Indeed, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to stay 18 and for appointment of counsel. In addition, although Plaintiff claims that there is “limited property 19 allowed” in California Medical Facility’s (CMF) Acute PIP, Defendants submit evidence otherwise. 20 Defendants submit the declaration of B. Reynolds, a Health Program Coordinator employed by the 21 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who supervises staff within the PIP. 22 (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 95-1.) B. Reynolds declares as follows: 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law library access is available to inmates housed in the Acute PIP at CMF via a paging system. A true and correct copy of a policy memorandum, dated January 13, 2017, regarding law library access in CMF’s Acute PIP is attached as Exhibit A. At the direction of Deputy Attorney General Janet Chan, on July 3, 2019, I personally spoke to inmate-patient John Williams (V-34099) regarding his law library access while he is housed in CMF’s Acute PIP. Williams stated that he has submitted a request to access the law library via the paging system and that, to date, he has received all of the law library materials that he has requested. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 During the conversation, I also learned that Williams has not yet received his personal property, including legal property, from his transferring institution California State PrisonCorcoran. I also learned that staff have been made aware of the issue and are working to address it. Per prison regulations, inmates within the CDCR are allowed up to six cubic feet of personal property (section 3190(d)), plus up to one cubic foot of inmate-owned legal materials (section 3161). There are not additional limits on the amount of property inmates housed within CMF’s Acute PIP are allowed to have, subject to individualized safety and security concerns as determined by mental health staff. It does not appear that Williams currently has any additional restrictions on how much property he is allowed. (Reynolds Dec. ¶¶ 2-5, ECF No. 95-1.) 9 Thus, inmates admitted to CMF’s Acute PIP have access to the law library via a paging 10 system, which Plaintiff has utilized. Inmates may complete a CMF Law Library Paging Request form 11 and submit it to nursing staff. (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Nursing staff then forward the form to the Property 12 MTA (medical technical assistant) no later than Tuesday of each week. (Id.) The Property MTA then 13 submits the form to the Law Librarian on the following day, Wednesday, and the Law Library will 14 process the request based on the patient’s status within 5 days for pro se inmates with pending active 15 court cases. (Id.) The Property MTA will pick up and deliver the requested material to the housing 16 unit, and staff will provide the inmate with the opportunity to review the materials within the week it 17 is received. (Id.) Indeed, to date, Plaintiff has requested and received all of the law library materials 18 he has requested. (Id. ¶ 3.) Thus, Plaintiff’s claim that will not be able to effectively defend or 19 prosecute this action while in PIP is contradicted by the evidence submitted by Defendants, and do not 20 provide a basis to stay the proceedings. 21 Lastly, with regard to Plaintiff’s claim that he has “yet to receive Defendants’ motion for 22 summary judgment,” Defendants have served two copies of the motion on Plaintiff. The first copy 23 was refused by Plaintiff, and the second copy was re-served on May 23, 2019. The fact that Plaintiff 24 may not have current possession of the motion is not attributable to Defendants. 25 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceeding shall be denied. However, 26 given that Plaintiff does not have possession of his legal property, the Court will grant Plaintiff an 27 additional thirty days to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but not 28 further extensions of time will be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances. 4 1 B. 2 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 3 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent 4 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 5 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court 6 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 7 1525. 8 9 Motion Appointment of Counsel 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 10 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 11 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 12 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 13 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 14 assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 15 proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases 16 almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and 17 his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See 18 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of 19 further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the 20 facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, they 21 do not. There is insufficient evidence before the Court to determine whether Plaintiff is likely to 22 succeed on the merits. Further, Plaintiff is able to articulate his claim and litigate this action. Plaintiff 23 has filed numerous motions, as well as propounded multiple discovery requests. In addition, Plaintiff 24 has litigated several other prior cases and is currently litigating two pending actions. See Williams v. 25 Riley, Case No. 2:16-cv-03002-JAM-DMC & Williams v. Alfaro, Case No. 1:17-cv-01310-AWI- 26 JLT.) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law 27 library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 28 5 1 assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied, 2 without prejudice. 3 III. 4 ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED; 7 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, is denied, without prejudice; and 8 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. No further extensions of time 9 will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances, not present here. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: 14 July 22, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
