(PC) Jones v. C.D.C.R. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUGENE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01298-KES-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 40)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
I. Background
Plaintiff Eugene Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 19, 2025, the Court screened the second amended complaint and found that
it stated a cognizable claim against correctional officer Borrego for excessive force and a
cognizable claim against correctional officer Hurd for failure to protect, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. (ECF No. 39.) The Court also found that the second amended complaint failed to
state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendants. (Id.) The Court
therefore issued findings and recommendations that recommended this action proceed on

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed August 14, 2025, (ECF No. 35), against correctional
officer Borrego for excessive force and against correctional officer Hurd for failure to protect, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) The Court also recommended that all other claims and
defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief may be
granted. (Id.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him
that objections must be filed within fourteen days. (Id.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Objections to Magistrate Recommendation,
Counsel,” filed January 8, 2026. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff states he just received the Court’s
orders and recommendations. He is currently in medical on Crisis Bed. (Id.) He alleges custody
is harassing him, playing with his mail, turning off his tablet, and preventing him from doing his
legal work. He asks the Court to grant him more time to go over the Court’s orders. He also
would like the Court to consider granting him counsel “because some of the words that’s in your
letter I don’t understand.” (Id.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for an
extension of time to file objections to the December 19, 2025 findings and recommendations and
a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel.
II. Request for Extension of Time
With respect to Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections to the findings
and recommendations, the Court finds good cause for the requested extension. Although Plaintiff
does not specify the amount of time requested, the Court finds that an extension of thirty days is
appropriate under the circumstances. Any future requests for an extension of this deadline
must be supported by good cause.
III. Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel
As Plaintiff previously has been informed, he does not have a constitutional right to
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in
part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for
the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the
court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved,
would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed
almost daily by prisoners who must also litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.
Further, while the Court has found that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief at
the screening stage, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Plaintiff has been able to state cognizable claims
for relief without the assistance of counsel.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the December 19, 2025
findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 40), is GRANTED.
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file his
objections, if any, to the December 19, 2025 findings and recommendations.
3. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 40), is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE