Stribling v. Brock et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03336

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{11}} Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Order Defendants to File Answer; and Denying His Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03336-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. REQUEST FOR COURT TO ORDER 9 DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER; DR. BROCK, et al., AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR 10 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff requests that the Court direct Defendants to file an answer to the complaint. The Northern District of California United States District Court 13 request is DENIED. Dkt. 11. On March 14, 2016, Defendants filed a waiver of reply pursuant to 14 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (allowing a defendant to "waive the right of reply" in a civil rights action 15 filed by a prisoner, providing that such a waiver is not an admission of the allegations in the 16 complaint, and disallowing relief for the plaintiff unless a reply has been filed). In their waiver, 17 Defendants correctly noted that the Court had not yet required a reply, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1997e(g)(2). Instead, Defendants have since filed a dispositive motion, which is currently 19 before this Court. See Dkt. 16. 20 Plaintiff also has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. See 21 Dkt. 11 at 1. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel 22 to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 23 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 24 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 25 of the legal issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be 26 viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional 27 circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. The request for 28 appointment of counsel is DENIED. Dkt. 11. 1 This Order terminates Docket No. 11. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: December 20, 2016 4 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2