Quezada v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 26 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Discovery Requests and 31 37 38 40 41 42 43 Motions Related to Discovery; Order Denying 32 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; ORDER Denying 33 Motion for TRO and 36 Motion to Dispense with the Requirement of Security; ORDER Denying 39 Second Request for Confirmed Copies signed by District Judge Frank R. Zapata on 08/17/2010. (Flores, E)

(PC) Quezada v. Hedgpeth et al

Doc. 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P la in tif f Alvaro Quezada, confined in the Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se c iv il rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Nipper and S o to filed an Answer to Counts I, II and III of the Second Amended Complaint, alleging v i o l a tio n s of Plaintiff's Fourteenth, Eighth and First Amendment rights. S c h e d u lin g Order will issue. R e f le c te d as pending in this action is a Request for an Extension of Time to Serve R e sp o n s e s to Discovery Requests by the Defendants and 11 additional motions filed by P la in tif f . Seven of the pending motions filed by Plaintiff are related to discovery. A S c h e d u lin g Order setting forth the deadlines and parameters for discovery and pretrial m a tte rs shall be entered forthwith. Accordingly, the parties' motions regarding discovery s h a ll be denied at this time. Also pending is Plaintiff's "Motion for the Appointment of Counsel." Counsel will o n ly be appointed in a civil rights action in which there exists "exceptional circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9 th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. A separate vs. A . Hedgpeth, et al., Defendants. Alvaro Quezada, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . CV 1-08-1404-FRZ ORDER I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

B re w e r , 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). "A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking a s s i s ta n c e requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the m e rits and an evaluation of the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims `in light of the c o m p le x ity of the legal issues involved.'" Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (citing Wilborn, 789 F .2 d at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims on the issues presented and his assertions fail to establish the e x is te n c e of the requisite exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel. This is e v id e n c e d by Plaintiff's 82-page motion, inclusive of attachments. Moreover, Plaintiff has e x p e rie n c e from the other actions he has filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's renewed motion shall b e denied. Plaintiff also moves for injunctive relief, raising a number of grievance against prison o f f ic ia ls in violation of rules and regulations and in violation of his constitutional rights. " [ A ] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should n o t be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Hughes v. City of Mariposa, 2010 WL 2557453 *2 (E.D.Cal.)(quoting Mazurek v. A rm s tr o n g , 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1867 (1997). "The purpose of a preliminary in ju n c tio n /te m p o ra ry restraining order is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities s o heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the p o s itio n until the merits of the action are ultimately determined." Id. (citation omitted). "A p la in tif f seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable h a rm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and th a t an injunction is in the public interest." Id. (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense C o u n c il, Inc., -- U.S. --, ----, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts or evidence to warrant the extraordinary relief re q u e s te d . Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief shall be denied. Plaintiff's re q u e s t for confirmed copies of motions filed shall also be denied. Unless a party submits a second copy to the Clerk of the Court, no conformed copy will be returned. -2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

B a s e d on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Request for an Extension of Time to Serve R e sp o n s e s to Discovery Requests (Doc. 26) and Plaintiff's motions related to discovery (D o c s . 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43) are DENIED without prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for the Appointment of C o u n s e l" (Doc. 32) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary Restraining O rd e r Preliminary Injunction" and "Motion to Dispense with the Requirement of Security" (Docs. 33 & 36) are DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Second Request for Confirmed Copies o f Two Motions Filed to This Honorable Court" (Doc. 39) is DENIED.

D A T E D this 17 th day of August, 2010.

-3-