United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO STAY THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 94]
John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's request to stay the
proceedings and for appointment of counsel, filed June 17,
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.
filed an answer to the complaint on March 28, 2018. On March
29, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling
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.
parties engaged in discovery, and Plaintiff filed two motions
to compel discovery.
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.)
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.”
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.)
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).
Motion to ...