Joseph Dale Young v. Nicole Sheldon, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-07838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JOSEPH DALE YOUNG, Case No. 25-cv-07838-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING 10 v. ACCOMMODATION; AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NICOLE SHELDON, et al., APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 9 13 14 On September 12, 2025, Mr. Young, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint asserting claims 15 for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and for violation of his constitutional 16 rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 See Dkt. No. 1. On October 1, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Young’s application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis, stating that “any issues regarding the sufficiency of the complaint would benefit 19 from briefing, and therefore [the Court] declines to recommend dismissal of the complaint at this 20 time under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” Dkt. No. 7 at ECF 1. The docket indicates that service of 21 the complaint and summons has not yet been completed. 22 With his complaint, Mr. Young filed a request for scheduling accommodation, stating that 23 he would be incarcerated beginning on September 11, 2025. Additionally, Mr. Young notes that 24 he currently is waiting for “review of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in a separate case 25 unrelated to the instant action.” See Dkt. No. 5 at ECF 3. Mr. Young requests permission to 26 appear by telephone or video at court proceedings and that case deadlines be extended or adjusted 27 “to account for [his] custodial status.” Id. 1 this time, the Court continues the initial case management conference to February 17, 2026, 1:30 2 p.m. The parties’ joint case management statement is due by February 10, 2026. All other 3 deadlines set in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. 4 No. 2) are adjusted accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, case management conferences are 5 conducted by Zoom Webinar. To the extent Mr. Young wishes to appear via some other remote 6 means (e.g., telephone), he should file a request no later than 7 days before the case management 7 conference. 8 Mr. Young also moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) for the appointment of counsel, 9 stating that he currently is “required by the probation program to reside in a residential program, 10 and cannot leave until the program is completed[.]” Dkt. No. 9 at ECF 2. Additionally, he says 11 that the property loss alleged in his complaint “pose[s] a serious obstacle to [his] ability to 12 properly investigate, litigate, and present his claims effectively.” Id. There is no constitutional 13 right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses 14 the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 15 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in 16 part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). A motion for the 17 appointment of counsel for an indigent litigant under § 1915 may be granted, in the Court’s 18 discretion, only in exceptional circumstances, which requires consideration of “the likelihood of 19 success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 20 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) 21 (quotations and citation omitted). The present action is at an early stage, and at this time, the 22 Court is unable to assess whether exceptional circumstances would warrant seeking volunteer 23 counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. Accordingly, Mr. Young’s motion to appoint counsel 24 is denied, without prejudice to raise the matter later in these proceedings, e.g., at the initial case 25 management conference. 26 Mr. Young is reminded that while this case is pending, he must promptly inform the Court 27 /// 1 of any change of address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: October 30, 2025 4 Virginia K. DeMarchi 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28