Chau v. Young et al
Filing
12
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 6 9 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/28/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
EDDIE CHAU,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
No. C 13-764 SI (pr)
Plaintiff,
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES
AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL
v.
J. YOUNG; et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
Defendants have filed an ex parte request for an extension of time to file a dispositive
15
motion. Upon due consideration of the request and the accompanying declaration of attorney
16
Kevin Voth, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket # 9.) The court now sets the following
17
new briefing schedule for dispositive motions: Defendants must file and serve their dispositive
18
motion no later than October 11, 2013. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his
19
opposition to the dispositive motion no later than November 8, 2013. Defendants must file and
20
serve their reply brief (if any) no later than November 22, 2013.
21
Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district
22
court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an
23
indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
24
1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits
25
and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
26
issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together
27
before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances
28
1
requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
2
counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 6.)
Finally, the court wants to clarify a point that plaintiff has misunderstood. The order of
4
service set a briefing schedule that called for defendants to file a motion for summary judgment
5
or other dispositive motion by July 12, 2013, approximately ten weeks after the order of service.
6
In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff wrote that the court's order of service
7
"compel[led] resolution of the case in 60 days." Docket # 6, p. 2. Plaintiff misunderstands the
8
situation. The court sets a deadline for a dispositive motion in order to move a case toward
9
resolution, but does not require that the case be resolved in 60 days. In the absence of any
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
deadlines, a defendant might do nothing and a pro se plaintiff might not know what to do to
11
move his action forward; such an action would simply linger on the court's docket unresolved
12
and benefitting no one. Deadlines tend to make the litigants focus on resolving the case, one
13
way or another. Not only is there no requirement that a case be resolved in 60 days, if a
14
dispositive motion is denied, a case may be referred for settlement proceedings, set for trial or
15
have other activity. And, of course, reasonable requests for extensions of time during any of
16
these events are always considered. There simply is no set time limit for the life of a case; it will
17
take as long as it takes, but the court does try to keep it moving toward some sort of resolution
18
– whether that resolution be by dispositive motion, by trial, or by settlement.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2013
_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
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?