Robinett v. Curry et al

Filing 13

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2010)

Download PDF
Robinett v. Curry et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TONY ROBINETT, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY; et al., Defendants. / No. C 09-3845 SI (pr) ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT Tony Robinett, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that he was injured when he fell from his ladderless bunk bed. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A and dismissed it with leave to amend by August 20, 2010. Plaintiff sent to the court a letter dated July 29, 2010 requesting an extension (of an unspecified length of time) of the deadline to file the amended complaint because he wants to try to locate an attorney to represent him. Upon due consideration, the court GRANTS a 60-day extension of the deadline. (Docket # 12.) Plaintiff must file his amended complaint no later than October 22, 2010. No further extensions of this deadline will be permitted. The court construes plaintiff's July 29, 2010 letter also to be a request for appointment of counsel and DENIES the request. A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under section 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2010 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?