Orr v Hernandez

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush on 07/09/10 ORDERING that the court is in receipt of plf's 44 letter. Plaintiff does not need permission of the court to file a motion; a request for appointment of counsel would be futile as this case does not present exceptional circumstances; a new Scheduling Order will subsequently issue at an appropriate time. Clerk to serve plf with Local Rules. (Benson, A.)

(PC) Orr v Hernandez

Doc. 45

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION FRANK ORR, Plaintiff, v. ADRIANA HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants. NO. CV-08-0472-JLQ ORDER RE: LETTER RECEIVED JUNE 30, 2010

The court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter signed June 23, 2010 and docketed June 30, 2010. Ct. Rec. 44. Plaintiff's letter appears to have been mailed prior to receiving the court's June 23, 2010 Order regarding the Second Amended Complaint and ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order. Ct. Rec. 42. Plaintiff inquires in his letter whether it would be appropriate to file a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. The court has previously determined that this case does not meet the required exceptional circumstances for the court to seek the assistance of counsel for Plaintiff. Ct. Rec. 14, 25. However, the court advised Plaintiff that as the case progressed, it would continue to evaluate the circumstances of the case. Plaintiff indicates in his letter that there is no longer a "legal clerk" at the prison library and it is causing "lots of problems." As the court has stated in its earlier orders, it understands the Plaintiff's need. However, that alone does not make this case an exceptional one justifying the appointment of counsel.
ORDER - 1
Dockets.Justia.com

Plaintiff does not need

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

permission of the court to file a motion. The filing of a motion, not letters, is the proper way for the court to address matters. However, at this time, a request for appointment of counsel would be futile as this case does not present exceptional circumstances. In his letter, Plaintiff also asks whether he is permitted to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order. No response is required since the court has already vacated the Scheduling Order. The local rules permit a party to oppose a motion by filing a response not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion. L.R. 230(l). However, in some instances, the court may determine a response is not necessary and immediately rule on a matter, as it did in granting the Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order. A new Scheduling Order will subsequently issue at an appropriate time. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter this order, provide copies to defense counsel and Plaintiff, and mail Plaintiff a copy of the Local Rules. DATED this 9th day of July 2010. s/ Justin L. Quackenbush JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER - 2