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.

Williams v. Bell

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 22, 2019

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
C. BELL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS, AND DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 94]

         Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's request to stay the proceedings and for appointment of counsel, filed June 17, 2019.

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         This action is proceeding against Defendants CEO Bell, Dr. Harris, Dr. Fischer, and Dr. Douglas for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on March 28, 2018. On March 29, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.

         Thereafter, the Court set the case for an early settlement conference. The parties attended the settlement conference on July 18, 2018, but the case did not settle.

         The parties engaged in discovery, and Plaintiff filed two motions to compel discovery.

         On April 12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. However, Plaintiff refused to accept delivery of Defendants' motion for summary judgment because he was “dissatisfied with the condition of the package as it appeared opened and torn.” (ECF No. 91, Chen Decl. ¶ 11 at 7.) On May 23, 2019, Defendants re-served Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of the motion for summary judgment. (Id. ¶ 12 at 8.)

         On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendants' lodging of his deposition transcript. On May 21, 2019, the Court construed Plaintiff's objections as a motion to suppress the deposition transcript and directed Defendants to file a response. Defendants filed a response on May 31, 2019. On June 12, 2019, the Court denied the motion to suppress the deposition transcript, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 92.) The Court noted that “no further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances, not present here.” (Id.)

         On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a documented titled as a “Reply” to Defendants' opposition to his motion to suppress his deposition transcript. (ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff moves to stay the proceedings “due to Psychiatric Inpatient Program (PIP), ” and appointment of counsel. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff submits that he has “been at the PIP level of care undergoing acute treatments to stabilize major depression and cutting disorder by self injurious behaviors” since May 14, 2019. (Id. at 3, Williams Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further contends that there is “limited property allowed and no physical access to a law library to conduct meaningful research.” (Id., Williams Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims he “won't be able to effectively defend or prosecute this action while in PIP” and he has “yet to receive Defendants' motion for summary judgment.” (Id.) Plaintiff therefore seeks to stay the action so that he “may focus on [his] PIP treatment.” (Id., Williams Decl. ¶ 5.) In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel. (Id.)

         Defendants filed an opposition on July 8, 2019. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time to do so has expired. Local Rule 230(1).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion to ...


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.