Grabek v. Dickinson et al
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 02/23/12 denying 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Defendants counsel must contact RJ Donovan and within 14 days of the date of this order, must inform the court whether plaintiff's missing l egal property has been restored to him there, also ascertaining that plaintiff will be provided adequate prison law library access to respond to the pending summary judgment motion. Thereafter, plaintiff must file his opposition to defendants' 02/17/12 motion for summary judgment by 04/09/12, after which defendants must file any reply within 7 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CHRISTOPHER GRABEK,
Plaintiff,
11
12
No. CIV S-10-2892 WBS GGH P
vs.
13
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
ORDER
/
By order, filed on January 13, 2012, the parties were granted an extended pretrial
17
dispositive deadline until February 20, 2012; in addition, although plaintiff’s motion regarding
18
“adjudication and settlement” was denied, the denial was without prejudice to the parties within
19
fourteen days providing information to the court as to whether they were amenable to the setting
20
of a settlement conference in this matter. On January 25, 2012, defendants informed the court
21
that plaintiff had been previously notified that his settlement offer had been considered and
22
declined and further asserted that they were not amenable to the setting of a settlement
23
conference, instead intending to move for summary judgment in this case. In a letter to the
24
court, filed in this court on February 3, 2012, plaintiff indicated he was interested in participating
25
in a settlement conference. Because defendants are not interested in participating in one at this
26
time, however, there would be no point in scheduling a settlement conference. On February 17,
1
1
2
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff in his letter also states that RJ Donovan, where he is currently housed
3
[following his transfer from California Medical Facility], has been on lockdown and he has not
4
been able to access the law library. He also states that although he has received his property a
5
box which contained his “court paperwork” and “medical documented evidence[]” is missing.
6
See letter at docket # 40. Plaintiff maintains that his efforts to have this property located have
7
proved fruitless. Plaintiff once again seeks appointment of counsel, stating that he is mentally ill
8
and is in the “extended [sic] outpatient level of care in the CDCR mental health delivery system”
9
and that he had previously had assistance from an inmate at California Medical Facility with
10
“every motion presented to the court... .” Id. He maintains that has no understanding of law and
11
legal procedures and complains that CDCR would provide him with a staff assistant even for a
12
rules violation report. Id. Plaintiff believes he is being treated unfairly and contends that he is
13
“delusional and paranoid schizophrenic by nature [] [d]ue to brain damage.” Id.
14
Plaintiff has previously been informed that this court does not have the authority
15
to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases, Mallard v. United States Dist.
16
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989), although in certain exceptional circumstances, the court may
17
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v.
18
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36
19
(9th Cir. 1990). The issues in this case arising from plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference
20
by defendants to his serious medical needs in the form of delayed surgery and ineffective
21
treatment for his severe head and neck pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment are relatively
22
straightforward. That plaintiff may suffer from some form of mental illness simply is not enough
23
to warrant this court’s request for voluntary counsel on his behalf. Unfortunately, this is not an
24
exceptional circumstance because a number of inmate plaintiffs have mental health problems and
25
it would be impossible for the court to meet the requests on that basis. Therefore, the court does
26
not find the required exceptional circumstances in this instance. However, the court will require
2
1
that defendants’ counsel contact RJ Donovan to expedite plaintiff’s access to his missing legal
2
property related to this case, if it can be located. Counsel must also ascertain that plaintiff is
3
permitted access to the law library sufficient to oppose the pending motion. Counsel for
4
defendants will be directed, within fourteen days, to inform the court whether the legal property
5
at issue has been restored to plaintiff and whether plaintiff will be permitted law library access.
6
If so, plaintiff, thereafter, will be required to file his opposition by no later than April 9, 2012,
7
after which defendants will have seven days to file any reply.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, filed on February 3, 2012
10
(docket # 40), is denied;
2. Defendants’ counsel must contact RJ Donovan and, within fourteen days of the
11
12
date of this order, must inform the court whether plaintiff’s missing legal property has been
13
restored to him there, also ascertaining that plaintiff will be provided adequate prison law library
14
access to respond to the pending summary judgment motion;
3. Thereafter, plaintiff must file his opposition to defendants’ February 17, 2012,
15
16
motion for summary judgment by April 9, 2012, after which defendants must file any reply
17
within seven days.
18
DATED: February 23, 2012
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
GGH:009
grab2892.ord
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?