Harris v. Bullard
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-06648
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Harris v. Bullard, Judge Gilliam denied counsel but granted Harris a fourth extension to file his second amended complaint.
Zackary T. Harris, whose deadline to file a second amended complaint was extended to September 18, 2020, but whose third request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Harris v. Bullard, Zackary T. Harris, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under federal law. He said he had been denied access to legal materials, the law library, and the courts, and described other health and confinement difficulties.
The court gave Harris until September 18, 2020, to file a second amended complaint. This was the fourth extension of that deadline, following an earlier dismissal of his amended complaint that allowed him to amend again.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Harris’s third request for appointed counsel because the case did not present exceptional circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted it.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Bullard · No. 4:19-cv-06648
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
Zackary T. Harris, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. Harris reported that he had been denied access to his legal materials, the law library, and the courts. He also alleged mental and physical health problems, threats from other inmates, and restrictions requiring him to remain locked up for 24 hours a day and to be escorted whenever he moved.
The court had dismissed Harris’s amended complaint on January 21, 2020, because it had numerous deficiencies, while allowing him to file another amended complaint. The court had already granted several extensions in response to Harris’s reports about limited access to his legal materials and the law library. Harris had also previously sought appointed counsel, and the court had denied those requests.
Rulings
The court granted Harris a fourth extension of time, until September 18, 2020, to file his second amended complaint. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying civil-rights claims.
The court denied Harris’s third request for appointed counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. In deciding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court considered both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer given the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that Harris’s likelihood of success was unclear at that stage and that he had ably pursued the case by filing multiple motions despite limited or no access to the law library and his legal materials. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own at a later date if the circumstances warranted it. The order terminated docket entry 26.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.