Guzman v. Jones

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAYITO GUZMAN, Case No. 19-cv-03757-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 9 v. GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 10 D.DORSEY, et al., DISPOSITIVE MOTION 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Solano, filed this pro se civil rights action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), where he 15 was previously housed. Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s request for appointment of 16 counsel (Dkt. No. 26) and the parties’ request for an extension of time for filing a dispositive 17 motion (Dkt. No. 25). 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 20 Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him counsel because he is unable to afford 21 counsel; he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; his incarceration greatly limits 22 his ability to litigate; he has limited knowledge of the law; he has limited access to the law library, 23 compounded by COVId-19 restrictions; the issues at this stage require significant legal 24 knowledge, research and investigation; counsel would enable Plaintiff to conduct and comply with 25 discovery, and to meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes; and Plaintiff has made efforts to 26 obtain a lawyer without success. 27 “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 1 counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Id. (citing Agyeman v. 2 Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. 3 Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005)). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an 4 evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and of the plaintiff’s ability to 5 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman, 6 390 F.3d at 1103. Both factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request 7 for counsel under § 1915. See id. 8 At this early stage in the litigation, the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits is 9 unclear, Plaintiff has thus far sufficiently articulated his claims pro se, the issues do not appear to 10 be unduly complex, and there is no indication that discovery in this action is so complex as to 11 require appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is therefore 12 DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 13 appointment of counsel should circumstances so require. Dkt. No. 26. 14 II. Request for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion 15 The parties have requested that the Court reset the dispositive motion deadline for sixty 16 (60)days after the Court issues its ruling on Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Good 17 cause being shown, the parties’ request is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 25. Within sixty (60) days of the 18 date of this order, Defendants shall file their dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to the 19 dispositive motion must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days 20 from the date the motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the 21 date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is 22 due. No hearing will be held on the motion. 23 CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of 25 counsel (Dkt. No. 26), and GRANTS the parties’ request for an extension of time to file their 26 dispositive motion (Dkt. No. 25). Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Defendants shall 27 file their dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion must be filed with the 1 Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The 2 || motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on 3 the motion. 4 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 25 and 26. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 3/25/2021

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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