(PC) Warden v. Cowan

E.D. California

(PC) Warden v. Cowan

DecidedFebruary 5, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-00431

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Warden v. Cowan ((PC) Warden v. Cowan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Warden v. Cowan, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MASA NATHANIAL WARDEN, No. 2:19-cv-00431-MCE-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 B. COWAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 36. 18 Plaintiff is incarcerated, and is bringing his civil case as a self-represented litigant proceeding in 19 forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. 20 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, asserting his case is complex, and he 21 needs extra time to answer discovery. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff indicates that defendants have 22 served him with interrogatories, but does not indicate when his responses are due. Id. 23 In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United 24 States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). 25 “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining 26 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on 27 the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 The undersigned already found once that there are no exceptional circumstances in this 2 || case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. ECF No. 30. Plaitniff presents no 3 | additional information that alters the court’s decision. Nor does plaintiff give the court enough 4 | information regarding his deadlines for discovery responses to allow the court to extend any of 5 || his response deadlines. 6 Plaintiff’ □ motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 36) is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | DATED: February 4, 2020 ~ 9 Hthren— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MASA NATHANIAL WARDEN, No. 2:19-cv-00431-MCE-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 B. COWAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 36. 18 Plaintiff is incarcerated, and is bringing his civil case as a self-represented litigant proceeding in 19 forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. 20 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, asserting his case is complex, and he 21 needs extra time to answer discovery. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff indicates that defendants have 22 served him with interrogatories, but does not indicate when his responses are due. Id. 23 In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United 24 States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). 25 “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining 26 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on 27 the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 The undersigned already found once that there are no exceptional circumstances in this 2 || case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. ECF No. 30. Plaitniff presents no 3 | additional information that alters the court’s decision. Nor does plaintiff give the court enough 4 | information regarding his deadlines for discovery responses to allow the court to extend any of 5 || his response deadlines. 6 Plaintiff’ □ motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 36) is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | DATED: February 4, 2020 ~ 9 Hthren— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Warden v. Cowan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-warden-v-cowan-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack