United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 97) ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF NO. 98) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983. Pending
before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff on June
20, 2016, a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 97)
and a third motion for a sixty (60) day extension of time to
respond to Defendant’s February 8, 2016, motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 98).
February 8, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 69.) On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed
a motion for a sixty (60) day extension of time to file an
opposition. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff’s motion was
granted on February 25, 2016. (ECF No. 73.) On April 21,
2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion requesting a forty-five
(45) day extension to time to file an opposition to
Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 90.)
Plaintiff’s motion was granted on April 27, 2016.
Plaintiff now seeks a third extension of time, this time for
sixty (60) days, to file his opposition to Defendant’s
summary judgment motion, citing lack of access to the law
library, the inefficient prison mail system, and his
laymen’s understanding of the law. (ECF No. 98.)
Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint counsel. (ECF No.
Request For Extension of Time to File Opposition
filed his summary judgment motion on February 8, 2016, more
than five months ago. In the ensuing five month period,
Plaintiff requested, and was granted, two extensions of time
to file his opposition. Rather than file an opposition,
however, Plaintiff researched, drafted, and filed a plethora
of other motions, including a motion to stay the proceedings
for the purpose of reopening discovery (ECF No. 78),
objections to two different sets of the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 80 &
92), and a third motion to compel discovery (ECF No.
For reasons unknown, Plaintiff now claims that his limited
access to the law library and delays in receiving his legal
mail prevent him from timely researching and drafting a
response to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 98.)
cannot delay the proceedings any longer. He shall file his
opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion
within twenty-one (21) days of this Court’s order.
Request For Counsel
has renewed his request for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in
this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525
(9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional
circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance
of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113
F.3d at 1525. However, 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, the District Court must evaluate both the likelihood
of success of 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.
present case, the Court does not find the required
exceptional circumstances. At this stage in the proceedings,
the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is
likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the
record and numerous filings in this ...