(PC) Ripple v. CDCR ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORRAINE RIPPLE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01102-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR PRIVATE 14 CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORR. AND INVESTIGATOR OR EXPERT WITNESS REHABILITAITON, ET. AL., 15 (Doc. No. 16) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Lorraine Ripple is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s 19 objections to the Court’s October 28, 2022 Order denying her motion requesting appointment of 20 counsel and a request for a private investigator or expert witness. (Doc. No. 16); (see also Doc. 21 Nos. 6, 8). 22 While it is difficult to discern Plaintiff’s objections, she argues she should be appointed 23 counsel and a private investigator or an expert witness because she has a permanent vision 24 impairment. (Doc. No. 16). Additionally, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s order because she may 25 be eligible for resentencing. (Id. at 1). 26 The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive. As stated in the Court’s October 28, 27 2022 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion requesting appointment of counsel and a request for a 28 private investigator or expert witness, Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating 1 || exceptional circumstances and the normal challenges faced by pro se litigations do not warrant 2 | appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 8); See Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 3 | Jan. 14, 2014), Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App’x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of 4 | counsel because the plaintiff's “circumstances were not exceptionally different from the majority 5 | of the challenges faced by pro se litigants.”). 6 Furthermore, while the assistance of counsel during trial may be helpful, the “relevant 7 | consideration is not one of convenience” but rather exceptionalness. Howard v. Hedgpeth, 2010 8 | WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010). Finally, Plaintiff does not cite, and this Court is 9 | unaware of any authority that would permit the appointment of counsel and a private investigator 10 | or an expert witness because a party may be eligible for resentencing. The Court also finds this 11 || argument unpersuasive. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 16) to the Court’s October 28, 2022 Order are 14 | OVERRULED. 15 '© | Dated: _ February 13, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28