Jackson v. Covello et.al.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO JACKSON, Case No.: 19-cv-02444-JAH-JLB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 14 P. COVELLO, et al., MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 15 Defendants. COUNSEL [ECF No. 66]; AND
16 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’s 17 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [ECF No. 67] 18
19 20 Presently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Ricardo Jackson 21 (“Plaintiff”). First, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel to assist him 22 in prosecuting this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 66.) 23 Additionally, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time to file an opposition 24 to the motion to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants. (ECF No. 67.) For the reasons 25 set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment 26 of counsel (ECF No. 66) and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 27 (ECF No. 67). 28 /// 1 I. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 2 In his motion, Plaintiff requests the Court appoint counsel to assist him in 3 prosecuting this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff 4 makes various arguments in support of his request. First, Plaintiff states he should be 5 appointed counsel because the complexity of the issues would require significant research 6 and investigation and he “has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of 7 the law, in comparison to the ‘Attorney General’s Office . . . .’” (Id. at 1.) Second, Plaintiff 8 asserts that the cases and various rules and authorities cited in Defendants’ motion to 9 dismiss “is a whole lot to research.” (Id. at 2.) Third, Plaintiff notes the challenges 10 associated with conducting a trial, presenting evidence, and cross-examining witnesses as 11 a self-represented individual. (Id.) Fourth, Plaintiff describes his various medical 12 disabilities and related pains as “major” hindrances to his ability to “prepar[e] his active 13 case in a timely manner.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff states that, despite his efforts, he has been 14 unable to obtain pro bono counsel. (Id.) 15 The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless 16 an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. 17 of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district 18 courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional 19 circumstances.” Terrel v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of 20 exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the 21 merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 22 of legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed 23 together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 25 Here, although it appears Plaintiff is indigent, the Court finds that the appointment 26 of counsel is inappropriate at this juncture. The Court is unable to determine Plaintiff’s 27 likelihood of success on the merits, as Defendant’s motion to dismiss remains pending. 28 Although Plaintiff alleges he suffers from physical disabilities, the various iterations of 1 Plaintiff’s complaint, and its ability to survive sua sponte screening, demonstrate his ability 2 to sufficiently grasp the legal issues involved and to adequately articulate his claims. 3 Furthermore, the Court finds that neither the limitations of imprisonment, nor Plaintiff’s 4 lack of legal knowledge, qualify as an exceptional circumstance warranting the 5 appointment of counsel. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for 7 appointment of counsel because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere 8 v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION 10 Additionally, Plaintiff is requesting an extension of time to file his opposition to 11 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 67.) Defendants filed the motion to dismiss on 12 February 14, 2023. (ECF No. 57.) The Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin thereafter ordered 13 Plaintiff to file an opposition no later than March 15, 2023. (ECF No. 59.) Due to rainy 14 weather, difficulty getting into the law library, and his medical conditions and disabilities, 15 Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an opposition. (ECF No. 60.) The Honorable 16 John A. Houston granted the request and continued Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition 17 to April 14, 2023. (ECF No. 61.) On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion 18 seeking an extension of time from the Court until June 20, 2023. (ECF No. 63.) The Court 19 granted the requested extension and continued Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition to 20 June 20, 2023. (ECF No. 64.) 21 On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking an additional extension 22 of time until July 15, 20231. (ECF No. 67.) In his motion, Plaintiff argues circumstances 23 out of his control prevented him from timely filing his opposition, necessitate the requested 24 25
26 27 1 Plaintiff’s motion requests “15 days more” (ECF No. 67-1 at 2) “to an including July 15, 2023” (ECF No. 67 at 1). The Court notes that fifteen days past the current deadline 28 1 extension, and constitute excusable neglect for the late request. (ECF Nos. 67 at 1; 67-1 2 at 2–3.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts a COVID-19 outbreak amongst inmates resulted in 3 a “quarantine lockdown for over a month,” during which movement was limited to only 4 the medical bay. (ECF No. 67-1 at 2.) Further, Plaintiff claims that his “disabilities and 5 other medical conditions” have limited his ability to prepare his objection. (Id.) 6 Plaintiff specifies he has “almost finish[ed his] objection” and still must determine 7 the status of cited legal authorities. (Id.) Because Plaintiff claims to have been close to 8 completing his opposition and his request is modest, the Court will grant the requested 9 extension. However, Plaintiff is cautioned that no further extensions are likely to be 10 granted. 11 Based on the forgoing, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 12 motion for an extension of time.3 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 66) is 16 DENIED without prejudice; and 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 23
24 25 2 Pursuant to Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules, “[a]ny motion filed fewer than 7 calendar days in advance of the dates and deadlines at issue must address excusable 26 neglect for the untimely request.” J. Burkhardt Civ. Chambers R. § IV(A). 27 3 Liberally interpreting Plaintiff’s motion as a request for an extension until July 15, 2023, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion by extending the deadline to July 18, 2023, the 28 1 2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an opposition (ECF No. 67) 2 ||is GRANTED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jackson v. Covello et.al. (Jackson v. Covello et.al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.