Penn v. Allen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 MARLIN A. PENN, Case No. 23-cv-00126-JSC

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 12 v. TIME; DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 T. ALLEN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 24 Defendants. 14

15 This is a civil rights case filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se. Good cause 16 appearing, Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED. 17 (ECF No. 24.) The motion is due on or before July 17, 2023, the opposition is due on or before 18 August 24, 2023, and if an opposition is filed, then Defendants shall file a reply brief within 14 19 days of the date the opposition is filed.1 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of a lawyer to represent him. (ECF No. 21.) 21 There is no right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 22 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 24 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). At least at this stage, 25 the issues in this case are not sufficiently complex, nor has Plaintiff been unable to effectively 26

27 1 The parties’ reports indicate that Plaintiff now has access to his legal papers. Plaintiff’s 1 present his claims, such that the interests of justice necessitate referral for location of pro bono 2 || counsel to assist Plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should 3 referral for location of pro bono counsel become necessary at a later time, the Court will issue a 4 || referral order on its own; Plaintiff need and shall not request appointment of counsel in this Court 5 again. 6 This order disposes of docket numbers 21 and 24. 8 || Dated: July 12, 2023 9 10 fe ACQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY, nited States District Judge 12

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