Wells v. Cagle, et al
Filing
57
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion To Postpone Deposition (ECF No. 54 ), ORDER Directing Parties To Submit Information Regarding Plaintiff's Request For Appointment Of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/3/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
ANDRE WELLS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
T. CAGLE, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv-1550-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO POSTPONE DEPOSITION
(ECF No. 54)
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO
SUBMIT INFORMATION REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
16
I.
17
Plaintiff Andre Wells (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2011. This action
19
proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant T. Cagle and Defendant John Doe (R. Perez) for
20
violations of the Eighth Amendment.1
21
Introduction
On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to postpone his deposition, which is noticed
22
for April 15, 2014. (ECF No. 54.) On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff also filed a motion for the
23
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 55.) Defendant Cagle has not had an opportunity to respond
24
to either motion. However, the Court finds it appropriate to address the motion to postpone the
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff has identified Defendant John Doe as R. Perez. The Court has not yet ordered service of
Defendant R. Perez.
1
1
deposition at this time. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s deposition shall be stayed
2
pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
3
II.
4
On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 18, pp. 2-5.)
5
On May 10, 2013, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. (ECF No. 22.) On July 10,
6
2013, Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the motion to appoint
7
counsel. Plaintiff argued that he required the appointment of counsel to deal with custody road
8
blocks and because of his mental processing disorder. (ECF No. 30.) The District Court judge
9
denied the motion for reconsideration, noting that Plaintiff’s reported difficulties caused by his
Procedural Background
10
custody and incarceration did not present exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment
11
counsel. With regard to the mental processing disorder, the Court indicated that Plaintiff
12
referenced a doctor’s declaration, but the declaration was not on file. The Court advised Plaintiff
13
that he was not precluded from filing a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel to present
14
such evidence. (ECF No. 34.)
15
On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second motion for the appointment counsel.
16
Plaintiff argued that he required counsel due to an auditory processing disorder and persistent
17
road blocks from prison correctional officers and law library staff. Plaintiff’s motion included a
18
declaration from Dr. Karen Bronk Froming dated July 22, 2010, along with requests for law
19
library access. (ECF No. 35.)
20
On September 17, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel without
21
prejudice. After reviewing the declaration of Dr. Froming, which indicated that Plaintiff suffers
22
neuropsychological deficits in decision-making, planning and memory and has problems with
23
central auditory processing and paying attention, the Court found no indication that Plaintiff’s
24
auditory processing and other deficits had prevented him from adequately articulating his claims
25
or from appropriately responding to or preparing written materials and pleadings. However, the
26
Court noted that the action had not yet required any hearings, conferences or depositions that
27
would implicate Plaintiff’s auditory processing difficulties. The Court informed Plaintiff that he
28
2
1
was not precluded from renewing his request for counsel if the action proceeded to trial “or
2
otherwise requires him to rely on his auditory processing skills.” (ECF No. 36, p. 3 n. 1.)
3
III.
4
Plaintiff has renewed his motion for the appointment of counsel and has simultaneously
Discussion
5
notified the Court of his impending deposition noticed by Defendant Cagle for April 15, 2014.
6
(ECF Nos. 54, 55.) Plaintiff seeks to postpone the deposition for reasons other than his auditory
7
processing difficulties and mental health issues. Although the reasons proffered by Plaintiff,
8
without more, would not support a postponement, a deposition by oral examination clearly
9
implicates Plaintiff’s auditory processing difficulties. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to
10
stay Plaintiff’s deposition until the pending request for appointment of counsel is resolved.
11
In order to assess the request for counsel, the Court requires additional information from
12
the parties. In particular, the Court requires updated information regarding Plaintiff’s condition.
13
Dr. Froming’s declaration, which was submitted in support of Plaintiff’s request for counsel, is
14
dated July 22, 2010. (ECF No. 55, p. 9.) The Court does not have any evidence or information
15
regarding Plaintiff’s current mental functioning or psychological condition. Accordingly,
16
Plaintiff shall be required to supplement his request for counsel with evidence regarding his
17
current mental functioning and psychological condition. Once Plaintiff submits his supplemental
18
information, Defendant Cagle shall file a response to Plaintiff’s request for counsel.
19
IV.
20
For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
21
1. Plaintiff’s motion for postponement of his deposition is GRANTED;
22
2. The April 15, 2014 deposition of Plaintiff is STAYED pending resolution of
23
Conclusion and Order
Plaintiff’s request for counsel;
24
3. Within thirty (30) days, Plaintiff shall supplement his request for appointment of
25
counsel with any available evidence regarding his current mental functioning and
26
psychological condition; and
27
28
3
1
4. Within twenty-one (21) days after service of Plaintiff’s supplemental papers, if any,
2
Defendant Cagle shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
3
counsel.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
April 3, 2014
7
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. McAuliffe
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?