Williamson v. Martinez et al
Filing
67
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/10/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 65 ) is denied; Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 63 ) is denied; and plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 66 ) is denied. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FREDDIE LEE WILLIAMSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-1079-JAM-EFB P
v.
ORDER
M.I. MARTINEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. ECF No. 65. He also moves to
19
compel defendant Martinez to provide further responses to his requests for production. ECF No.
20
63. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 64. Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time
21
to file a reply to defendant’s opposition, so that he can research the cases cited in defendant’s
22
opposition. ECF No. 66. As stated below, plaintiff’s motions are denied.
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require
23
24
counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.
25
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney
26
to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935
27
F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
28
/////
1
1
When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the
2
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
3
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
4
(9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional
5
circumstances in this case.
6
Plaintiff moves to compel defendant to produce further responses to his requests for
7
production. The only specific requests identified in plaintiff’s motion are RFP Nos. 1 and 5. In
8
response to No. 1, defendant responded that she does not have any responsive documents in her
9
possession, custody, or control. In response to No. 5, defendant indicated that the only responsive
10
documents had been produced. Though plaintiff argues that the documents he seeks are
11
“relevant,” he does not dispute defendant’s representation that the requested documents are not in
12
her possession, custody, or control, or that defendant has produced the only relevant documents in
13
her possession, custody, or control. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel must be
14
denied, and his request for an extension of time to file a reply is denied as moot.
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 65) is denied;
17
2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 63) is denied; and
18
3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 66) is denied.
19
Dated: October 10, 2013.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?