Walker v. Moore
Filing
29
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 28 AND EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/21/2015. (Discovery due by 6/25/2015. Dispositive Motions filed by 8/28/2015).(Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DARRYL WALKER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
vs.
14
1:13-cv-02102-AWI-GSA-PC
C/O MOORE,
15
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Defendant.
(Doc. 28.)
16
17
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR
ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION
18
New Discovery Deadline:
19
New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 08/28/15
06/25/15
20
21
22
I.
BACKGROUND
Darryl Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
23
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
24
December 19, 2013. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the original Complaint, against
25
defendant C/O Moore (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth
26
Amendment.1
Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
27
28
1
On May 8, 2014, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, on Plaintiff’s Rule 41 motion
to dismiss. (Doc. 11.)
1
1
On August 20, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines
2
for the parties, including a deadline of April 20, 2015 to conduct discovery, and a deadline of
3
June 29, 2015 to file dispositive motions. (Doc. 25.)
4
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to extend the discovery deadline for thirty
5
days, and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 28.) Defendant has not opposed the
6
motions.
7
II.
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
8
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
10
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the
11
modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due
12
diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the
13
prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the
14
scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not
15
grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
16
(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by
17
demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
18
Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension of the discovery deadline because he has been
19
transferred to another institution, where he has limited time and resources for litigation, and he
20
is therefore unable to meet the discovery deadline.
21
Discussion
22
In light of the fact that Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s motion to modify the
23
Scheduling Order, and good cause appearing, the court shall extend the discovery deadline to
24
June 25, 2015, and the dispositive motions deadline to August 28, 2015, for all parties to this
25
action. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall be granted.
26
III.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
27
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
28
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
2
1
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court
2
for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However,
3
in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
4
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
5
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
6
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
7
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
8
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
9
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
10
Discussion
11
Plaintiff merely argues that he suffers from mental illness, without further explanation.
12
This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. A review of the record in this case shows that
13
Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his claims. The legal
14
issue in this case, whether Defendant used excessive force against Plaintiff, is not complex, and
15
this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the
16
court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
17
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice to
18
renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
19
III.
Id.
CONCLUSION
20
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
1.
22
23
2015, is GRANTED;
2.
24
25
28
The deadline for the parties to conduct discovery, including the filing of motions
to compel, is extended from April 20, 2015 to June 25, 2015;
3.
26
27
Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court's Scheduling Order, filed on April 13,
The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
June 29, 2015 to August 28, 2015 for all parties to this action;
4.
All other provisions of the court's August 20, 2014 Scheduling Order remain the
same; and
3
1
5.
2
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on April 13, 2015, is
DENIED, without prejudice.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 21, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?