Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/06/15 granting 22 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 defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants shall file any reply in accordance with Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 23 is denied. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
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-2066 MCE DAD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ November 24, 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. 22) 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 defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants 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. 23) is denied. Dated: January 6, 2015 12 13 14 DAD:9 dear2066.36opp 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?