Young v. Naphcare Inc.

Background

Joseph Dale Young, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations and inadequate medical services during his incarceration at the Santa Cruz County Jail. The court had granted his application to proceed without paying filing fees. The docket showed that the complaint and summons were served on October 24, 2025.

Motion to Continue Deadlines

Young asked to continue all case-management dates until 60 days after his release from custody. He stated that his incarceration was temporary, but also said that he was awaiting transfer for the remainder of his three-year sentence or until his petition challenging his custody was reviewed. He did not provide information about how long his current incarceration was expected to last.

The court declined to continue all case-management dates indefinitely. Instead, it granted Young’s request as modified. The initial case-management conference was reset for January 20, 2026, at 1:30 p.m.; the parties’ joint case-management statement was made due January 13, 2026; and the other deadlines in the earlier scheduling order were adjusted accordingly. The court stated that, unless it ordered otherwise, case-management conferences would be held by Zoom Webinar. It also stated that Young could request another form of remote appearance, such as by telephone, no later than seven days before the conference.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Young moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) for appointment of counsel. He argued that the case involved complex discovery concerning medical records, correctional policies, and corporate practices, and that he lacked formal legal training and resources to obtain and present evidence.

The court explained that a civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel unless losing the case could result in the person’s loss of physical liberty. It further explained that counsel may be appointed for an indigent litigant only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to present claims without a lawyer in light of the legal issues’ complexity.

The court denied Young’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, meaning he may raise the request again later in the case, including at the initial case-management conference. The court also terminated Young’s earlier unsigned counsel motion and treated the later signed version as the operative motion.

Disposition

The court granted, as modified, Young’s motion to continue deadlines and denied without prejudice his motion for appointment of counsel. It reminded Young to promptly notify the court of any address change and stated that failing to do so could result in dismissal of the action.