Childs v. State of California et al
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/12/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 56 , 58 ) are DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs request to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 62) is granted in part and de nied in part. The discovery and scheduling order is modified as follows: a. The parties may conduct discovery until July 13, 2015. Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R . Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than April 15, 2015. b. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before October 13, 2015. Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 8 of the order filed February 21, 2014. c. All other dates identified in the scheduling order (ECF No. 35 ) shall remain in effect. Plaintiffs motion for investigator fees (ECF No. 59 ) is denied. Plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 62 ) is denied.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EARL CHILDS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-670-TLN-EFB P
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. This order addresses five motions pending before the court. See ECF Nos. 56,
19
58, 59, 60, and 62.
20
I. MOTIONS TO COMPEL
21
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel defendants to respond to his discovery requests.
22
ECF Nos. 56, 58. In response, defendants admit error, apologize, and explain: “Upon receiving
23
Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ counsel reviewed the proofs of service for Defendants’ discovery
24
responses and learned that they were apparently sent to an R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility
25
post office box, instead of to the institution’s street address.” ECF No. 57 at 1. Defendants stated
26
that they served plaintiff with their discovery responses soon after receiving plaintiff’s motion
27
and identifying their error. Id. at 2.
28
/////
1
1
Defendants’ representation to the court that they have served plaintiff with their discovery
2
responses moots plaintiff’s motions to compel those discovery responses. Accordingly, the court
3
will deny plaintiff’s motions to compel. If plaintiff contends that defendants have not in fact
4
served the responses or if plaintiff believes the responses do not comply with the discovery rules,
5
he may file another motion to compel.
6
II. MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
7
Plaintiff’s first motion to compel requested that the court set new dates “in the case and
8
for trial.” ECF No. 56 at 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a separate motion that elaborates on his
9
request to modify the scheduling order and specifically asks for additional time (1) to conduct
10
discovery and to file motions to compel discovery, (2) to file dispositive motions, and (3) “to
11
request a settlement.” ECF No. 62 at 1, 3. Defendants do not oppose an extension of the time for
12
the filing of dispositive motions,1 but do oppose any other modification of the scheduling order.
13
ECF No. 57 at 2; ECF No. 66 at 1-3.
14
A. Time to File Dispositive Motions and “To Request a Settlement”
15
Because defendants do not oppose the request, the court will modify the scheduling order
16
and extend the deadline to file dispositive motions. However, plaintiff’s motion is denied to the
17
extent it seeks to modify the scheduling order to extend the time “to request a settlement,” as the
18
scheduling order does not place any time restriction on such requests. See ECF No. 35; see also
19
ECF No. 66 at 3 (“Although Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely false,
20
they would not oppose a settlement conference once the dispositive motions are resolved.”).
21
B. Time to Conduct Discovery and to File Motions to Compel Discovery
22
The scheduling order stated: “The parties may conduct discovery until October 17, 2014.
23
Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery
24
/////
25
/////
26
27
1
In fact, defendants have filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file a motion for
summary judgment. See ECF No. 60.
28
2
1
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than August 8, 2014.” ECF
2
No. 35 at 4.2 Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to modify those deadlines. ECF No. 66 at 2.
3
A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline
5
despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th
6
Cir. 1992).
7
Plaintiff alleges that because he did not receive defendants’ discovery responses until
8
early January 2015, he has not had a sufficient amount of time to determine if he needs to file
9
additional discovery requests or motions to compel. ECF No. 62 at 1-2. Good cause appearing,
10
the court will modify the scheduling order to provide additional time for the parties to conduct
11
discovery, file motions to compel, and file requests for discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of
12
Civil Procedure3 31, 33, 34, or 36. See also Calloway v. Veal, 571 F. App’x 626, 627 (9th Cir.
13
2014) (reversing grant of summary judgment for defendants because plaintiff did not have “an
14
appropriate opportunity to conduct discovery,” where “[t]he magistrate judge’s scheduling order
15
gave the parties a mere three-and-a-half months from the filing of the answer to complete
16
discovery, and an additional two-and-a-half months to file dispositive motions.”).
17
III. MOTION FOR INVESTIGATOR FEES
18
Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for investigator fees. ECF No. 59. “A
19
court may only authorize the use of public funds for indigent litigants when authorized by
20
Congress. The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize federal courts to spend public funds
21
on investigators.” Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 489 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted).
22
Because the in forma pauperis statute does not provide for such an expense, see 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1915(c), plaintiff’s motion for investigator fees is denied.
24
/////
25
26
27
28
2
The court subsequently granted defendants’ motion for an extension of time to serve
their discovery responses. See ECF No. 55 (allowing defendants to serve their responses as late
as December 15, 2014).
3
All subsequent references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
3
1
2
IV. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff again requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 62; see also ECF Nos. 15
3
(requesting the appointment of counsel) and 17 (denying the appointment of counsel). District
4
courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in §1983 cases. Mallard v.
5
U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request
6
an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.
7
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th
8
Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must
9
consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
10
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560
11
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no
12
exceptional circumstances in this case.
13
V. ORDER
14
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
15
1.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 56, 58) are denied as moot.
16
2.
Plaintiff’s request to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 62) is granted in part
17
and denied in part. The discovery and scheduling order is modified as follows:
18
a. The parties may conduct discovery until July 13, 2015. Any motions
19
necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for
20
discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later
21
than April 15, 2015.
22
b. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before October 13, 2015. Motions
23
shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 8 of the order filed February 21,
24
2014.
25
c. All other dates identified in the scheduling order (ECF No. 35) shall remain
26
in effect.
27
28
3.
Because this order modifies the discovery and scheduling order to provide
additional time for both plaintiff and defendants to file dispositive motions,
4
1
defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary
2
judgment (ECF No. 60) is denied as moot.
3
4.
Plaintiff’s motion for investigator fees (ECF No. 59) is denied.
4
5.
Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 62) is denied.
5
DATED: February 12, 2015.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?