Barno v. Padilla

N.D. California

Barno v. Padilla

DecidedJanuary 3, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-03886

StatusUnknown

This text of Barno v. Padilla (Barno v. Padilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barno v. Padilla, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, Case No. 20-cv-03886-SI (pr)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING NEW DEADLINES 9 v. AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 10 ARMANDO PADILLA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 37 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff has requested a second extension of the deadline to file his opposition to defendants’ 14 motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 37. Plaintiff asserts that he needs more time to file his 15 opposition to defendants’ motion because he has limited access to the law library, which was closed 16 “due to the holidays (Christmas and New Year[’]s).” Id. at 1. Upon due consideration, the request 17 for a 14-day extension is GRANTED. The court now sets the following new briefing schedule on 18 defendants’ motion for summary judgment: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition no later than 19 January 21, 2022. Defendants must file and serve their reply, if any, no later than February 4, 20 2022. No further extensions of these deadlines should be expected. 21 Plaintiff has also requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A 22 district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an 23 indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 25 and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 26 issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances are not 27 1 straightforward. Additionally, plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims pro se. The 2 || request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 36. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. A Dated: January 3, 2022 Sate WU tee 5 □ SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, Case No. 20-cv-03886-SI (pr)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING NEW DEADLINES 9 v. AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 10 ARMANDO PADILLA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 37 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff has requested a second extension of the deadline to file his opposition to defendants’ 14 motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 37. Plaintiff asserts that he needs more time to file his 15 opposition to defendants’ motion because he has limited access to the law library, which was closed 16 “due to the holidays (Christmas and New Year[’]s).” Id. at 1. Upon due consideration, the request 17 for a 14-day extension is GRANTED. The court now sets the following new briefing schedule on 18 defendants’ motion for summary judgment: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition no later than 19 January 21, 2022. Defendants must file and serve their reply, if any, no later than February 4, 20 2022. No further extensions of these deadlines should be expected. 21 Plaintiff has also requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A 22 district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an 23 indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 25 and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 26 issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances are not 27 1 straightforward. Additionally, plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims pro se. The 2 || request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 36. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. A Dated: January 3, 2022 Sate WU tee 5 □ SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barno v. Padilla, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barno-v-padilla-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack