Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hilson v. Arnett

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 2, 2018

RASHEED HILSON, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE ARNETT, et al., Defendants.

          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

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Before 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 230(l).

         I. Change of Address

         Plaintiff's 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 discovery.

         At the 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.

         It was 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 was updated.

         Plaintiff 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.”

         II. Motion for Extension of Time

         As 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.

         In 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.

         III. Appointment of Counsel

         Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel.

         Plaintiff 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.