Williams v. Haag et al

Filing 23

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 21 22 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LAWRENCE LEE WILLIAMS,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 12-3310 SI (pr)
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE
FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

v.
MELINDA HAAG,
United States Attorney; et al.,
Defendants.

13

/

14

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint is GRANTED.

15
16
17
18
19
20

(Docket # 21.) Plaintiff must file his amended complaint no later than October 31, 2012. No
further extensions of this deadline should be expected. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended
complaint must be a complete statement of his claims and will supersede existing pleadings. See
London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes
of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.")
After requesting an extension of time, plaintiff filed a request for a stay of proceedings

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

due to an illness for which he was taken to an outside hospital in mid-July. Although his visit
to an outside hospital suggests a significant illness, he was back in county jail shortly after being
taken to the outside hospital and has filed numerous documents since his return to county jail.
A stay of the proceedings is not appropriate because plaintiff has demonstrated his continuing
ability to read, write and file documents. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is DENIED. (Docket #
22.)

The court has, however, provided a lengthy extension of time for plaintiff to file his

amended complaint: by the time the October 31, 2012 deadline arrives, plaintiff will have had

1

three months to prepare his amended complaint. If plaintiff genuinely feels he is unable to

2

proceed, he may request a voluntary dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to assist him in this action. A district

4

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an

5

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

6

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

7

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

8

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

9

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel

11

is DENIED. (Docket # 17.)

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2012

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2