(PC) Rosas v. Kings County Jail

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 EDDIE ENRIQUE ROSAS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00274-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

15 Defendants. (Doc. 12)

16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17

18 Plaintiff Eddie Enrique Rosas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2023, the Court entered findings and recommendations to 20 dismiss the action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11). 21 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking an extension of time to file 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 12.) As grounds, Plaintiff indicates the 23 prison law library has limitations and restrictions, suggesting he has been unable to access the 24 library to perform research to prepare his objections. (Id.) For good cause shown, the Court 25 grants Plaintiff an additional fourteen days to file objections to the findings and 26 recommendations. 27 Plaintiff indicates that he is does not know the rules that he must follow. (Id.) However, 28 in the findings and recommendations, the Court has set out the applicable rules of procedure and 1 legal standards necessary for Plaintiff to draft objections as appropriate. (Doc. 11.) 2 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel because he does not have the means to 3 hire one on his own. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel 4 in section 1983 actions. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The district 5 courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. 6 Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may 7 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 8 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court 9 seeks 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 11 on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 12 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 13 There is little doubt most pro se litigants “find it difficult to articulate [their] claims,” and 14 would be better served with the assistance of counsel. Id. For this reason, in the absence of 15 counsel, federal courts must construe pro pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of 16 the doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The 17 rule of liberal construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 18 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, where a pro se litigant can “articulate his claims” in light 19 of the relative complexity of the matter, the “exceptional circumstances” that might warrant the 20 appointment of counsel do not exist. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; accord Palmer v. Valdez, 560 21 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 22 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that this case is not complex and 23 does not present exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the Court will not seek volunteer counsel 24 to represent Plaintiff in this action. 25 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 26 12) is GRANTED, and his request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 27 Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file 28 objections to the findings and recommendations of July 26, 2023 (Doc. 11), or a notice of 1 | voluntary dismissal if he no longer wishes to pursue this action. 2 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action for 3 | failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to obey a court order. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ August 10, 2023 | Ww KD Ke 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28