(PC) Hardin v. Covello
This text of (PC) Hardin v. Covello ((PC) Hardin v. Covello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY THOMAS HARDIN, JR., No. 2:23-cv-1902 DAD AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The court recently received a motion from plaintiff seeking an extension of time 19 and appointment of counsel, in which plaintiff stated that he was submitting “skin tapings of [his] 20 face & neck” as evidence of his claims. ECF No. 24. It appeared that plaintiff had in fact 21 attached a piece of tape with skin attached to his motion. Plaintiff is advised that he should not 22 send evidence to the court, particularly non-documentary evidence such as skin samples, as the 23 court will not preserve or hold evidence on plaintiff’s behalf. The Clerk of the Court will be 24 directed to return plaintiff’s motion to him. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further submissions 25 containing biological materials will be returned or destroyed and will not be filed. 26 With respect to the motion itself, plaintiff requests an additional thirty to sixty days to file 27 a second amended complaint and that counsel be appointed on the ground that the screenings of 28 his first two complaints “caused hurdles in effectively filing a complaint.” ECF No. 24. This 1 | does not establish grounds for extending the deadline or appointing counsel. Plaintiff has already 2 || been granted one sixty-day extension, and the current deadline to file an amended complaint is 3 || March 13, 2025. He does not offer any explanation as to why he has been unable to file an 4 || amended complaint within the time he has already been provided. Nor has he demonstrated that 5 || exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant the appointment of counsel in this case. See 6 || Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (the court may request voluntary 7 || assistance of counsel in certain exceptional circumstances). The motion for appointment of 8 | counsel will therefore be denied. However, in light of plaintiff's status as a pro se prisoner, he 9 || will be granted an additional thirty days to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that 10 | further extensions are unlikely to be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. 13 2. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint (ECF 14 | No. 24) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty days, up to April 14, 2025, to file 15 || a second amended complaint. 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return to plaintiff his motion for appointment of 17 || counsel and for an extension of time (ECF No. 24). 18 || DATED: February 28, 2025 ~ 19 Chthion— Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Hardin v. Covello, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hardin-v-covello-caed-2025.