Bivins v. Ju et al
Filing
94
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/30/20 GRANTING 90 Request for Reconsideration; DENYING 90 request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the 81 findings and recommendations.(Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH BIVINS,
12
No. 2:16-cv-0389 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
DR. JEU, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On April 14, 2020, the
18
undersigned recommended that the motion for summary judgment filed by Dr. Jeu, the sole
19
remaining defendant, be granted and this action be terminated. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
20
the court’s order denying the appointment of counsel, based on his claims that he has no access to
21
any legal materials and there was no legal delivery system in place for COVID-19. (ECF No. 90
22
at 1.) In response to the court’s further briefing order, defendants submitted evidence concerning
23
the modifications that have been implemented due to COVID-19, including limited physical
24
access to the law library, and access to the prison’s paging services, where inmates may obtain
25
research, legal forms, and photocopies. (ECF No. 92 at 2.) In addition, the litigation
26
coordinator’s records reflect plaintiff has not accessed the library or made any request to access
27
the library or legal materials since at least April 1, 2020. (Id.) In November, the library is
28
providing limited PLU and GLU access. (ECF No. 92-1 at 2.)
1
In light of the pending findings and recommendations, the undersigned again does not find
2
that plaintiff has demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.1
3
While the court is not unsympathetic to the difficulties posed by the pandemic, parties and the
4
court are finding ways to adjust and continue with their litigation obligations. The findings and
5
recommendations issued over seven months ago, yet prison records reflect plaintiff has taken no
6
steps to access the library or legal materials. Plaintiff is reminded that he is required to prosecute
7
his action; he must follow prison rules and regulations in order to obtain access to his legal
8
materials, to gain physical access to the law library, and to avail himself of the prison paging
9
system. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted one final extension of time in which to
10
file objections to the findings and recommendations. No further extensions of time will be
11
granted absent a showing of substantial cause.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (ECF No. 90) is granted;
14
2. Upon reconsideration, plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
15
90) is denied; and
16
3. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file objections
17
to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 81).
18
Dated: November 30, 2020
19
20
/bivi0389.36c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In certain “exceptional circumstances,” a court may appoint an attorney to represent a pro se
plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
Determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist requires consideration of the plaintiff's
“likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,
970 (9th Cir. 2009).
2
1
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?