Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/06/15 granting 24 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order in which to file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant shall file any reply in accordance with Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 25 is denied. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:13-cv-2064 MCE DAD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file an opposition to defendant’s
October 7, 2014 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme
21
Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners
22
in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain
23
exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);
25
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
26
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s
27
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
28
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
1
1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
2
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
3
establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of
4
counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 24) is granted;
7
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an
8
opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant shall file any reply in accordance with
9
Local Rule 230(l); and
10
11
3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 25) is denied.
Dated: January 6, 2015
12
13
14
DAD:9
dear2064.36opp(2)
15
16
17
18
19
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?