Malcolm Stroud v. Pruitt et al

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' 29 Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING Plaintiff's Renewed 30 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Consider Plaintiff's Settlement Offer, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/8/2020.Opposition due within THIRTY (30) DAYS. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PRUITT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Case No. 1:17-cv-01659-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SETTLEMENT
OFFER
(ECF No. 30)

18

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

19

Plaintiff Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20
21

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a

22

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

I.

Introduction

24

This action is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against

25

Defendant Pruitt for sexual abuse in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants

26

Pruitt and Smith for discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

27

Amendment. (ECF No. 19.)

28

On December 9, 2019, Defendants Pruitt and Smith filed a motion for summary judgment
1

1

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 29.)

2

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an

3

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for

4

appointment of counsel, and Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to consider

5

Plaintiff’s settlement offer, filed on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 30.)

6

II.

7

Motion for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff requests that this Court grant him an extension of time to file his opposition to

8

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs

9

additional time to adequately prepare his opposition because he has been unable to get access to

10

the prison law library due to the numbers of other inmates also wanting access and the library’s

11

limited schedule during the holiday season. (Id.)

12

Having considered the request, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause

13

for an extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

14

time to file his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion is granted. Plaintiff shall

15

file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, if any, no later than thirty (30)

16

days from the date of service of this order.

17

III.

18

Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

19

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to

20

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for

21

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional

22

circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1).

23

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

25

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

26

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

27

on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
2

1

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v.

2

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional

3

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id.

4

Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court should appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this

5

action because Plaintiff is an indigent layperson at law, who suffers from post-traumatic stress

6

disorder. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that they have a hard time with concentrating, especially

7

while reading, which results in a loss of comprehension and understanding.
However, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointed counsel, but

8
9

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Initially, circumstances common to most

10

prisoners, such as lack of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire

11

counsel, do not alone establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of

12

counsel. Further, Plaintiff’s apprehension with pursuing this case on his own, while

13

understandable, is not sufficient grounds for appointing counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

14

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during

15

litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary

16

to support the case.”). Additionally, while Plaintiff has pled cognizable claims, Plaintiff has not

17

established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of those cognizable claims. Finally,

18

based on a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that the legal issues in this case do not

19

appear to be particularly complex and that Plaintiff can adequately articulate their claims.
Therefore, the Court denies, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for

20
21

appointment of counsel.

22

IV.

23

Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Consider Plaintiff’s Settlement Offer
Plaintiff moves this Court for an order requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiff’s latest

24

settlement offer. (ECF No. 30, at 4.) However, Plaintiff does not have a legal right to compel

25

Defendants to consider, or accept, Plaintiff’s settlement offers. Therefore, the Court denies

26

Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiff’s latest settlement offer.

27
28

However, Plaintiff is not precluded from negotiating a settlement directly with defense
counsel.
3

1

V.

Order

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 30), is GRANTED;
2.

6
7

Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion
within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3.

8
9

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’

Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 30), is DENIED,
without prejudice; and

4.

10

Plaintiff’s motion for order requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiff’s settlement
offer, (ECF No. 30), is DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 8, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4