Mitchell v. Williams et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/03/13 ordering plaintiff's 12/19/12 motion for the appointment of counsel 47 is denied. On or before 07/08/12, plaintiff shall file and serve any supplemental opposition he wishes to submi t in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. No extensions of time will be granted for this purpose in light of the lengthy period of time plaintiff has already had to file his opposition. Defendants' supplemental reply, if any, shall be filed within 7 days after service of plaintiff's supplemental opposition. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LACY MITCHELL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. 2:10-cv-01829 KJM DAD P WILLIAMS, et al., 14 15 16 Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 16, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 18 (Doc. No. 41.) Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion seeking both the appointment of 19 counsel and a medical expert on his behalf. (Doc. No. 42.) The motion was denied by the 20 undersigned on November 27, 2012. (Doc. No. 43.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for 21 reconsideration of that order. (Doc. No. 44) On December 12, 2012, the assigned District Judge 22 affirmed the November 27,2012 order. (Doc. No. 46.) 23 On December 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a document styled as an “Opposition & 24 Reply Motion To The Defendants [sic] Summary Judgment [and] Emergency Request For The 25 Appointment Of Counsel.” (Doc. No. 47.) Therein, plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ pending 26 motion for summary judgment should be denied because the defendants were deliberately 1 1 indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs and because there are “many disputed facts” but that 2 plaintiff is “unable to respond point for point at this time due to no legal assistance by either a 3 (lawyer) [sic] or (inmate) [sic] to help him with his case.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also contends that 4 he suffers from rheumatoid arthritis which “prevents him from typing and writing his case” and 5 that counsel is needed because of his “medical disabilities.” (Id.)1 Plaintiff concludes his 6 submission by renewing his request for the appointment of counsel. (Id. at 2-3.) 7 The court will deny plaintiff’s emergency request for the appointment of counsel 8 based on the court’s November 27, 2012 order and the District Judge’s order affirming the 9 November 27, 2012 order. However, in the interest of justice, the court will provide plaintiff 10 with a final opportunity to file written opposition in response to defendants’ pending motion for 11 summary judgment. In light of the fact that plaintiff has had over six months to file his 12 opposition, the court will not entertain any extensions of time to file any supplemental opposition 13 he wishes to file. Defendants will also be provided time to file a supplemental reply2 in the event 14 plaintiff elects to file a supplemental opposition addressing the merits of the pending motion for 15 summary judgment. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s December 19, 2012 motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 18 No. 47) is denied; 19 2. On or before July 8, 2012, plaintiff shall filed and serve any supplemental 20 opposition he wishes to submit in response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. No 21 extensions of time will be granted for this purpose in light of the lengthy period of time plaintiff 22 has already had to file his opposition. 23 24 1 The undersigned notes that plaintiff’s three-page type-written filing is coherent, understandable and contains citations to pertinent legal authorities. 25 2 26 Defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s December 19, 2012 filing which, for the most part merely noted the inadequecy of plaintiff’s opposition. (Doc. No. 48.) 2 1 3. Defendants’ supplemental reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days after 2 service of plaintiff’s supplemental opposition. 3 DATED: June 3, 2013. 4 5 6 DAD:4 mit1829.36oppo 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?