Steward v. Stevenson

N.D. California

Steward v. Stevenson

DecidedFebruary 28, 2023

Docket3:20-cv-09310

StatusUnknown

This text of Steward v. Stevenson (Steward v. Stevenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steward v. Stevenson, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON J. STEWARD, Case No. 20-cv-09310-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND GRANTING 10 STEVENSON, et al., PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION 11 Defendants. Docket No. 33

12 13 14 In the instant action, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to a single claim in 15 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Docket No. 20. After several extensions of time, 16 Defendants moved for summary judgment. Docket No. 39. Plaintiff sought, and was granted, an 17 extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motion. Docket Nos. 40, 41. However, Plaintiff’s 18 deadline has passed, and no opposition has been filed. See generally, Docket. 19 In case Plaintiff is waiting for a ruling on his pending motion to be appointed counsel 20 before filing his opposition, the Court clarifies that Plaintiff’s motion to be appointed counsel is 21 DENIED. Docket No. 33. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to 22 designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn 23 v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 25 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive 26 and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). 27 Here, exceptional circumstances are not present because the issues in this action are not complex. 1 failed to exhaust his claims as to eight of the eleven Defendants, and his claims against the 2 remaining Defendants appear to depend on whether they ensured Plaintiff received medical care as 3 urgently as Plaintiff preferred. See generally, FAC. Additionally, the filings that Plaintiff has 4 submitted show that he is able adequately to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s request for 5 appointment of counsel to represent him in this action therefore is denied. 6 The Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition to 7 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the 8 motion to dismiss no later than March 24, 2023. Defendants must file and serve their reply, if 9 any, no later than April 7, 2023. 10 This order disposes of Docket No. 33. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: February 28, 2023 15 16 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON J. STEWARD, Case No. 20-cv-09310-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND GRANTING 10 STEVENSON, et al., PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION 11 Defendants. Docket No. 33

12 13 14 In the instant action, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to a single claim in 15 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Docket No. 20. After several extensions of time, 16 Defendants moved for summary judgment. Docket No. 39. Plaintiff sought, and was granted, an 17 extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motion. Docket Nos. 40, 41. However, Plaintiff’s 18 deadline has passed, and no opposition has been filed. See generally, Docket. 19 In case Plaintiff is waiting for a ruling on his pending motion to be appointed counsel 20 before filing his opposition, the Court clarifies that Plaintiff’s motion to be appointed counsel is 21 DENIED. Docket No. 33. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to 22 designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn 23 v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 25 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive 26 and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). 27 Here, exceptional circumstances are not present because the issues in this action are not complex. 1 failed to exhaust his claims as to eight of the eleven Defendants, and his claims against the 2 remaining Defendants appear to depend on whether they ensured Plaintiff received medical care as 3 urgently as Plaintiff preferred. See generally, FAC. Additionally, the filings that Plaintiff has 4 submitted show that he is able adequately to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s request for 5 appointment of counsel to represent him in this action therefore is denied. 6 The Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition to 7 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the 8 motion to dismiss no later than March 24, 2023. Defendants must file and serve their reply, if 9 any, no later than April 7, 2023. 10 This order disposes of Docket No. 33. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: February 28, 2023 15 16 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Steward v. Stevenson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steward-v-stevenson-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack