Willis v. Cassey et al
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/1/11 DENYING 15 motion to appoint counsel, DENYING 38 Motion regarding the taking of his deposition.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MARCELL WILLIS,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1631 MCE GGH P
vs.
FOLSOM STATE PRISON
MEDICAL STAFF, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983, while a state prisoner. It appears plaintiff has subsequently paroled. Most of the
18
defendants answered the amended complaint on April 21, 2011, while at least one remained
19
unserved at that time. A discovery and scheduling order issued, setting a September 23, 2011,
20
deadline and a pretrial dispositive motion filing deadline of January 27, 2012. Docket # 29.
21
However, in light of the remaining defendant upon whom service has not yet been completed, it
22
is not likely that the current deadlines will be sustained, as the discovery deadline has passed
23
without the remaining defendant having yet been served.
24
Plaintiff filed a document, on September 16, 2011, requesting that his deposition
25 be taken via phone conference because he, as a parolee, is not allowed to travel more than 50
26 miles and thus cannot come to Sacramento. Plaintiff did not state when he was scheduled to be
1
1 deposed nor where the deposition was noticed to take place. He did provide telephone numbers at
2 which he states he may be contacted by defendants. As the present discovery cut-off has passed,
3 and no further communication has been forthcoming from either side, the court is unable to
4 determine how the parties have resolved the question. In any event, plaintiff’s incomplete request
5 must be denied.
Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme
6
7 Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners
8 in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain
9 exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.
11 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find
12 the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will
13 therefore be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion regarding the taking of his
14
15 deposition, filed on September 16, 2011 (docket # 38), is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
16
17 appointment of counsel (Docket No. 15) is denied.
18 DATED: November 1, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
GGH:009
21
will1631.ord
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?