Smith v. Schuyler

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-03864
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LARRY SMITH, Case No. 23-cv-03864-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME AND SETTING NEW 9 v. DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING; DENYING MOTION FOR 10 C. SCHUYLER, et al., APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 43

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action 13 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 14 an opposition to the joint summary judgment motion of Defendants Drs. Singh and Kalinjian is 15 GRANTED. (ECF No. 43.) The deadline for this opposition is now July 1, 2024. The deadline 16 for Plaintiff to oppose the separate summary judgment motion of Defendant Kathryn Bergen is 17 also extended to July 1, 2024. These Defendants shall file a reply on or before July 15, 2024. 18 Plaintiff’s late opposition to Defendants Doherty’s motion for summary judgment is 19 accepted as timely. Defendant Doherty has filed a reply brief, which is also accepted as timely. 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of a lawyer to represent him in this civil rights 21 case. There is no right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social 22 Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant 23 under § 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). Plaintiff feeling “a bit 25 overwhelm[ed]” by the responsibilities for litigating this case and two other cases he has filed in 26 the Eastern District of California does not necessitate his representation by a lawyer in the 27 interests of justice. (ECF No. 42 at 3:14.) Plaintiff’s papers has shown he is capable of presenting 1 counsel is DENIED. Should referral for location of pro bono counsel become necessary at a later 2 time, the Court will issue a referral order on its own; Plaintiff need and shall not request 3 appointment of counsel in this Court again. 4 This order disposes of docket numbers 42 and 43. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 22, 2024 7 8 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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