United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF NO.
59) FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM
Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This matter proceeds on Plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Arnett,
Gamboa, Potzernitz, Flores, and CO Jane Doe, and an Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Marsh.
(ECF Nos. 16, 18, 54, 57.)
the Court is Plaintiff's February 20, 2018 motion
requesting an extension of the discovery cut-off. (ECF No.
59.) He also there raises additional issues which will be
addressed below. Defendants filed no response and the time
for doing so has passed. The matter is submitted. Local Rule
Change of Address
request for extension of time is based on his contention that
the Court failed to update his address for nearly a year, and
that failure has interfered with his ability to conduct
initiation of this case, Plaintiff was advised of the
requirement to keep the Court apprised of his current
address. Upon review of the docket, it appears that Plaintiff
filed, on March 20, 2017, a motion for appointment of
counsel, stating that he had been moved to a crisis bed at
California State Prison - Los Angeles County
(“CSP-LAC”). (ECF No. 39.) He did not
specifically request a change to his address of record, and
his address of record remained the institution where he
previously had been incarcerated, California Correctional
Institution (“CCI”). Over the course of the
following year, Plaintiff filed additional motions listing
his address at CSP-LAC, none of which requested a change of
address. Mail directed to Plaintiff at his address of record
at CCI was not returned to the Court.
not until December 11, 2017 that Plaintiff formally filed a
Notice of Change of Address, changing his address of record
to CSP-LAC. (ECF No. 55.) At that time, his official address
is aware of the procedure for updating his address, having
filed a Notice of Change of Address on two separate
occasions. (ECF Nos. 12, 55.) The Court will direct the
Clerk's Office to send Plaintiff additional change of
address form. To prevent further delays in Plaintiff's
receipt of Court mail, Plaintiff should utilize this form for
future address changes or, at the very least, should title
his submission as “Notice of Change of Address.”
Motion for Extension of Time
stated, Plaintiff's request for extension of time is
based on his contention that the Court failed to update his
address and thereby interfered with his ability to conduct
discovery. It appears that the Court's discovery and
scheduling order was served on Plaintiff at CCI, but that
Plaintiff was then at CSP-LAC. Again, the mail served on
Plaintiff at CCI was not returned to the Court. It therefore
is unclear whether or when Plaintiff may have received the
Court's discovery and scheduling order.
light of these circumstances, and the Court having previously
granted an extension to Defendants to conduct Plaintiff's
deposition, the Court will grant Plaintiff's unopposed
motion to extend the discovery cut-off by ninety days.
Appointment of Counsel
requests the appointment of counsel.
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 District Court for the Southern
District 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 Aexceptional
circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both
the likelihood of ...