Dixon v. O'Connor, et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lloyd D. George on 7/25/2011 GRANTING 55 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to 49 Motion to Dismiss, Opposition due by 8/24/2011; DENYING 56 Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING 57 Motion for Consolidation. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIEL STEVE DIXON,

8

2:08-CV-01546-LDG

Plaintiff,
ORDER

9

v.

10

J.S. O’CONNOR, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Daniel Steve Dixon has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (#56). In order

14

for the motion to be granted, Dixon must show exceptional circumstances, including the

15

likelihood of success on the merits and the inability of the pro se litigant to articulate his claims in

16

light of the complexity of the issues involved. Willborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

17

Cir. 1986). Dixon, however, has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for

18

appointment of counsel.

19

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to reply to Defendants

20

Knipp, Martel, Grannis, and O’Connor’s motion to dismiss (#55). This court previously granted

21

Dixon’s similar request with regard to Defendants Costales and Anderson’s motion to dismiss

22

(#54). Therefore, for good cause shown, and for a unified briefing schedule on the pending

23

motions to dismiss,

24

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file

25

(#55) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file any opposition to Defendants Knipp, Martel, Grannis, and

26

O’Connor’s motion to dismiss by August 24, 2011.

1
2
3
4

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
(#56) is DENIED.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for consolidation (#57) is
DENIED.

5
6

Dated this ____ day of July, 2011.

7
8

________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2