Govind v. Felker et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by District Judge Otis D. Wright, II on 06/17/11 DENYING 42 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DANIEL H. GOVIND,

)

13

)

14

)
Plaintiff,

15
16

vs.

No. 2:06-CV-02467
Consolidated with 2:08 CV 01183-ODW

)
)
)

17
18

WARDEN FELKER, D. L. RUNNELS,

)

19

and M. MCDONALD,

ORDER

)

Defendants

20
21

_____________________________

)
)

22
23

In a document filed May 26, 2001 [42] entitled “Answer to Williams & Associates

24

Records Request Form and Interrogatories and Request for Attorney” Plaintiff has once

25

again requested, among other items, the appointment of counsel to assist him in the

26

prosecution of this civil action. Once again, the request is DENIED. Persons in state

27

custody do not have a right to the appointment of counsel to pursue on their behalf a civil

28

action.

1

In the alternative, plaintiff suggests that this action be stayed until he is released

2

from custody, yet he makes no suggestion as to when that might occur, if at all. No good

3

cause having been shown and no possible date being offered to suggest how long this

4

matter might linger on the court’s docket, the request for an indefinite stay is DENIED.

5

Plaintiff also purports to make inquiry, not of any defendant, but of defense counsel

6

as to whether the defendants have received the summons and complaint. Given that the

7

defendants have all filed motions challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings, the answer

8

to that question should be apparent. More importantly is a caution to plaintiff that this is not

9

the proper vehicle to conduct discovery, nor is it appropriate to submit questions to

10

opposing counsel. The questions are to be directed to the defendants individually. Lastly,

11

discovery is not to be filed with the court. To the extent a portion of this filing is to be

12

construed as “interrogatories” plaintiff is directed to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule

13

33.

14

The second request made to Williams and Associates is a demand for payment of

15

an amount certain. Plaintiff is advised that settlement discussions should not be made a

16

part of the public record. Plaintiff would be better advised to simply direct correspondence

17

to counsel suggesting his terms for resolution of this matter.

18

Plaintiff next states his intention not to provide further information or to answer

19

questions except in the presence of his attorney. He has further stated that he has already

20

provided the court and the defendants with his claims and presumably the factual basis

21

supporting those claims and states he has “no other questions to answer.” First, it is noted

22

that plaintiff has no attorney, therefore his stated intention not to answer questions except

23

in the presence of “his attorney” implies his intention not to submit to a deposition if

24

requested.

25

defendants then refuse to submit to discovery. In the event plaintiff refuses to participate

26

in discovery so as to enable defendants to know precisely what evidence plaintiff intends

27

to offer at trial and what conduct on their part they will be called upon to defend at trial, the

28

court will have no option but to take rather drastic measures. Plaintiff is referred to Federal

Plaintiff is reminded that he may not commence litigation against the

1

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 under the heading “Failure to Make Disclosures or to

2

Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions, with special attention paid to Rule 37 (b).

3

By Order entered on June 14, 2011, plaintiff was reminded that participation in

4

properly noticed discovery is not optional but mandatory. Plaintiff was further warned that

5

refusal, in the face of that order, to cooperate in discovery would result in the dismissal of

6

this suit. Plaintiff is again reminded of that result.

7
8

The remaining material in this filing has been repeatedly raised in other filings
and need not again be addressed here.

9
10
11
12

DATED:

June 17, 2011

______________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3