Robinson v. San Joaquin County et al

Filing 112

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/18/15 DENYING Plaintiff's renewed motion to appoint counsel, filed 1/13/15. The Clerk of the Court shall file plaintiff's 1/13/15 email in this action under seal. All future emails in this case will be disregarded. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY W. ROBINSON, 11 12 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Defendant. 15 16 17 18 On January 13, 2015, plaintiff sent an email to the court renewing his request for appointment of counsel. It appears that defense counsel was copied on that email. Plaintiff is informed that all documents concerning his case must be filed and served in 19 paper as provided in the Local Rules. See E.D. Local Rule 133. Plaintiff’s current request will 20 be addressed only because defendant had notice of it; however, plaintiff is warned that all 21 correspondence must be filed in paper with the Clerk’s Office. Future emails will be disregarded. 22 Plaintiff has renewed his request for appointment of counsel based on his contact with an 23 attorney who showed interest in his case. Any successful application for appointment of counsel 24 must comply with criteria set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 25 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before appointing counsel to plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 26 Bradshaw requires the court to consider (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts already 27 made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 28 1318. Appointment of counsel is not a matter of right. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F. 2d 1 1 266 (9th Cir. 1982). 2 This action was filed over two years ago. The case has been delayed numerous times for 3 various reasons. Discovery and law and motion deadlines have been extended pursuant to 4 plaintiff’s request, and plaintiff has had numerous opportunities to pursue some of his discovery 5 motions after the cutoff. (ECF Nos. 46, 49, 64. 68, 103.) The law and motion deadline passed on 6 May 22, 2014; however, the court permitted plaintiff to file a supplemental opposition after that 7 time. (ECF Nos. 49, 102.) This case was also delayed for almost two months while the court 8 considered plaintiff’s first request for appointment of counsel, and attempted to locate counsel for 9 him, without success. (ECF Nos. 71, 75, 77, 86.) In all thirteen attorneys were contacted by the 10 court. (ECF No. 86.) The undersigned envisions no difference in the outcome if plaintiff’s 11 renewed request were granted, especially in light of the fact that the previous attorneys contacted 12 were made aware of the court’s attempts to appoint counsel. 13 Plaintiff’s renewed request has all the earmarks of further delay in reaching a conclusion 14 in this case, and going back to square one. Added delay is unfair to defendant. This order in no 15 way prevents plaintiff from retaining counsel on his own. Nevertheless, this action will be 16 delayed no more. 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. The Clerk of the Court shall file plaintiff’s January 13, 2015 email in this action under 19 seal.1 20 2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, filed January 13, 2015, is denied. 21 3. All future emails in this case will be disregarded. 22 Dated: January 18, 2015 23 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 GGH:076/Robinson2783.appt(2) 27 28 11 The email contains court email addresses for specific employees. 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?