Oxley v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAMUEL RUSS OXLEY, 11 Case No. 23-cv-00510 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR 13 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE; DENYING MOTION 14 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DEPUTY SAMUEL JONES, et al., 15 16 Defendants. (Docket Nos. 33, 30)

18 Plaintiff, who appears to be a pretrial detainee currently confined at the West 19 County Detention Facility, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 20 officers of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department. Dkt. No. 1. The Court found 21 the complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered service on Defendants who were 22 directed to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. No. 27. 23 Defendants have filed a motion to continue the deadline to file a motion for 24 summary judgment. Dkt. No. 30. Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. 25 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion no later 26 than December 1, 2023. Briefing shall proceed thereafter in accordance with the Court’s 27 briefing schedule. See Dkt. No. 27. 1 || complexity of the issues, limited access to the law library, and limited knowledge of the 2 || law. Dkt. No. 33. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an 3 || indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. 4 || Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 5 || (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on 6 || other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to 7 || request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound 8 || discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. 9 || Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiffs grounds are not 10 || exceptional among prisoner-plaintiffs nor are the issues complex. Accordingly, the motion 11 || 1s DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 12 America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); E 13 Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d S 14 |} 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 15 This order terminates Docket Nos. 30 and 33. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: _ September 5, 2023 fdiinihacwan 5 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | ee 26 27