ALVIN ROBERT ALEXANDER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
OFFICER DONALD A. RAMSEY, AND G. D. SULLENGER, CENTRAL DIVISION JAIL, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court erred by not ruling on the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel.
Appellant's civil rights action was dismissed without prejudice due to the statute of limitations tolling during incarceration. Appellant moved for ap…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant’s civil rights action against the police officers who arrested him on the state charges for which he is now incarcerated was dismissed without prejudice by the district court. The dismissal was prompted by the tolling of the applicable statute of limitations during appellant’s incarceration. Ney v. State of California, 439 F. 2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir. 1971), and the apparent inability of appellant to prosecute the action without the aid of counsel.
Appellant attempted to avoid the difficulties created by incarceration for the prosecution of the action by moving for the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Such motions are addressed to the district court’s sound discretion and they are granted only in exceptional circumstances. United States v. Madden, 352 F. 2d 792 (9th Cir. 1965).
But the district court did not rule on appellant’s motion. It should have. We therefore remand the case to the district court in order that it might have an opportunity to consider the question. In so doing, we imply no view of the merits of that question or of the underlying action. We do note, however, that incarceration does not foreclose access to the courts and the use of legal process to remedy civil wrongs. Cancino v. Sanchez, 379 F. 2d 808, 809 (9th Cir. 1967). See also Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F. 2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971). This factor should be considered when passing on appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
United States v. McQUADE, 579 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. 30.64 Acres OF Land, 795 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peterson v. Isadore Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971)
- NEY v. State OF Cal., 439 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1971)
- United States ex rel. Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Jess Cancino v. Sanchez, 379 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1967)