Baker v. Perez et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/2/2010 ORDERING that pltf's 27 motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED; pltf's 26 motion for access to his legal property is DENIED as moot; pltf's 25 motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery is GRANTED; the discovery cut-off date is RE-SET for 2/11/2011; the pretrial motion cut-off date is RE-SET for 4/22/2011. (Yin, K)

(PC) Baker v. Perez et al

Doc. 32

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 vs. PEREZ, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. On September 30, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery and a motion requesting that prison officials be ordered to provide him with access to his legal property and reading glasses. Plaintiff claimed that he could not prosecute this 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL BAKER, Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-2757 MCE KJN P

ORDER

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

action without access to these items. On October 28, 2010, defendants informed the court that plaintiff now has access to his legal property and reading glasses. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for access to these items is denied as moot. Pursuant to the September 15, 2010 scheduling order, the discovery cut-off date is January 3, 2011. Because plaintiff was denied access to his legal property, the discovery cut-off date is re-set to February 11, 2011. All requests for discovery are to be served no later than sixty days prior to that date. The pretrial motion cut-off date of March 25, 2011 is also vacated and reset for April 22, 2011. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 27) is denied; 2. Plaintiff's motion for access to his legal property (Dkt. No. 26) is denied as moot; 3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (Dkt. No. 25) is granted; the discovery cut-off date of January 3, 2011 is vacated and re-set for February 11, 2011; all requests for discovery are to be served no later than sixty days prior to that date; the pretrial motion cut-off date of March 25, 2011 is vacated and re-set for April 22, 2011. DATED: November 2, 2010

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
bake2757.31

2